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
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
The Lord Chancellor is settling into his new role and has not yet had a chance to speak to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, but I can reassure the hon. Lady that, at director level, cross-departmental working groups have been working hard. As she will know from the Ministry of Justice action plan, which was updated in January this year, significant progress has been made on neurodiversity.
Kerry McCarthy
I thank the Minister for his response, and for telephoning me yesterday. As I said during that conversation, it is estimated that one in four prisoners have attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and screening prisoners for that condition at an early stage—within a week of their entering prison, say—would not only help to prevent prison suicides, but aid rehabilitation and eventual resettlement. Will the Minister undertake to talk to his colleagues, particularly those on the Back Benches who have been working on this, about the need for such cases to be identified as early as possible?
Mike Freer
I can reassure the hon. Lady: I understand that prisoners are indeed screened in their first week, as are those on probation. However, there is more work to be done, and I am more than happy to arrange meetings with the hon. Lady and with any other colleague who wishes to pursue in more depth the work that we are doing in respect of both prisons and probation.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
May I commend the work that the Government are doing in pursuance of the call for evidence on neurodiversity that I initiated when I was in office? I note that 80 neurodiversity support managers have been appointed, but what more can be done to ensure that all our prisons have neurodiversity officers who can train other staff as well as screening prisoners who come into the system for a range of neurodiverse conditions?
Mike Freer
I pay tribute to the work that my right hon. and learned Friend has done in this regard. I know that he took it very seriously and was passionate about this issue. In fact, we now have 100 neurodiversity support managers rather than 80: we have made significant progress, but there are still have 22 vacancies. We have more work to do on the screening, and we have more work to do to ensure that the data collection is both consistent and robust.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
The Minister for Schools (Nick Gibb)
Our schools, colleges and teachers are committed to helping all pupils and students to thrive and achieve their potential in a safe and respectful environment. Gender can be a complex and sensitive matter for schools, which is why we are working with the Minister for Women and Equalities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch), to develop guidance for schools in relation to gender-questioning pupils. We will be finalising the draft guidance shortly, and will hold a full public consultation on it.
John Nicolson
The hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) appears to think that “drag story time” in Elgin is one of the most pressing issues facing the country today. What signal does the Minister think that sends to vulnerable and bullied trans and other LGBT children?
Nick Gibb
We know that this is, as I said, a complex and sensitive matter. Many schools already deal with issues relating to gender-questioning children as well as the other issues to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but some schools feel a need for more support to enable them to help pupils and their parents and deal with concerns that are raised, which is why we are producing the draft guidance for schools. That guidance, which we will publish soon, will be followed by a public consultation.
Mr Bradshaw
In April The Sunday Times reported that the Government intended to instruct schools to tell parents if students were questioning their gender identity. Given that a third of LGBT young people would not feel confident about coming out to their parents, given that a quarter of homeless young people are LGBT young people who have been chucked out of their homes by their families, and given the statement by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children that no one should ever disclose someone’s gender identity or sexuality against their will, other than in exceptional circumstances involving safeguarding, does the Minister agree that to instruct schools to “out” pupils to their families would be totally outrageous?
Nick Gibb
There is a difference between advice being given to a child by a particular teacher and decisions about children in which parental involvement is paramount, and it is crucial for schools to ensure that parents are involved in such decisions. As I have said, we will publish draft guidance shortly and there will be a full public consultation on our proposed approach.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
We need to trust parents, and we should tell children to trust parents. We are right not to confuse sexual orientation with gender confusion and other things. Schools really do need to say to children and to parents, “You can trust us as a school to let you know if your child is in distress.”
Nick Gibb
I agree with my hon. Friend. Parental involvement is important in all these matters, and they are sensitive matters, but there is a difference between what the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) spoke about, where a child who is confused about their sexual orientation or other personal problems has a confidential discussion with teacher, and big decisions about gender transitioning, for example, where parental involvement is important. Any decision about such matters needs to be taken with parental involvement.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
Last year, a YouGov poll found that around 80% of schools now have pupils who are trans identified, and Policy Exchange recently reported that four in 10 schools are operating policies of gender self-identification. Dr Hilary Cass has said that social transition is “not a neutral act” but a psychological intervention with unknown consequences for children’s welfare. Does the Minister agree that the new guidance for schools must make it clear that teachers are not qualified to make this psychological intervention and that the only safe approach is to protect children according to their biological sex?
Nick Gibb
As my hon. Friend will know, we are now producing guidance for schools on this sensitive matter. Draft guidance will be available shortly and we will consult on it. In order to provide the clearest possible guidance, we intend to consider pieces of work such as Dr Hilary Cass’s independent review of gender identity services to children and young people, which is ongoing.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
There is already very good guidance, written by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and I hope that the Minister will take account of that as he develops the Government’s guidance. Does he agree that this situation has now been highly politicised by particular people, to the detriment of those children and teachers who are trying to do their best in difficult circumstances? Will he explain why on earth it has taken the Government this long to publish the guidance, essentially leaving teachers without Government guidance in this very contested area? When will he support the work that teachers do?
Nick Gibb
In drafting the guidance, we have taken into account advice from experts such as the NSPCC and Dr Hilary Cass, as I have just mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates), but we have to get this guidance right. This is a sensitive matter. The drafting is happening right now and the guidance will be published shortly in draft. There will then be a full public consultation to ensure that all views are taken into account.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
Recent research by Policy Exchange suggests that more than 60% of schools do not reliably inform parents when their children express a wish to change gender. Many parents are concerned about schools keeping them in the dark about such important changes concerning their children, so can the Minister please confirm that parents must be kept informed of such an important change in behaviour in their child?
Nick Gibb
As I have said, parental involvement is paramount in any decisions about children, and it is important that schools work to ensure that parents are consulted before any decisions are made regarding a child socially transitioning. These are issues that we are thinking about and discussing with experts as we draft the guidance, which will be published shortly and will then be available for public consultation.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
Schools, parents and pupils who need guidance on these issues are sick and tired of reading conflicting rumours about the Government’s plans in the newspapers. Will the Minister confirm that the reason for the delay is that the Minister for Women and Equalities does not agree with the Education Secretary, who does not agree with the Minister for Children, who does not agree with the Prime Minister?
Nick Gibb
No, we are working closely with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities. We are consulting experts on drafting comprehensive guidance on a very sensitive matter, and we need to get it right. Many schools are dealing with these issues very successfully, day in and day out, but some schools want advice. They want good-quality advice, and the guidance on that is being drafted right now. It will be published shortly and made available for public consultation.
Anneliese Dodds
We have had noises off and rumours about this in the newspapers for over a year, and still no delivery. The sad truth is that schools are being left in limbo by a Government who are, yet again, focused on internal battles. Their LGBT action plan has collapsed, they are at war on banning conversion therapy and they are now squabbling over schools guidance too. Will the Minister apologise to the LGBT+ people who have been failed by this playground politics?
Nick Gibb
There is a range of views, as we have seen in the newspapers, but the Government are united in our determination to have very high-quality guidance for schools. This guidance has been drafted and it is in a very good state. It is ready for publication, and it will be published shortly. There will then be a full public consultation to make sure that all the views expressed in the newspapers, by the hon. Lady and by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, can be taken into account as we finalise this important guidance for schools.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
Throughout the pandemic, the Government took their responsibilities to people with disabilities extremely seriously. We all remember the daily press conferences, which almost always had signers present, but that was just one element of a much broader communications strategy that ensured guidance and information were provided in easy-read, large text, audio and many other formats.
Liz Twist
Many people with disabilities would disagree with the Minister’s assessment of the communications and feel that, throughout the pandemic, the Government often failed to provide specific communications to disabled people about their rights and access to support. What steps is he taking to ensure that public health announcements, public health information and daily briefings are accessible to and are reaching people with disabilities, particularly those with a learning disability?
Alex Burghart
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. On covid, I understand that this is something the inquiry will be considering. On her broader point, she will know that the NHS and publicly funded social care in this country have a duty, under section 250 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, to ensure that patients and people in care receive information in formats appropriate for them. I know the NHS takes that responsibility extremely seriously.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
Research from Scope shows that, in the last four years, the cost of running a disabled household rose from £583 a month to £975 a month. The Conservative cost of living crisis has forced disabled people to choose between using life-saving equipment and food. After 13 years of this Government, there are now over 1 million disabled people living in poverty. What action has the Minister taken to support these people?
Alex Burghart
The hon. Lady will know the extraordinary lengths to which this Government have gone to support people through the cost of living crisis. Help has been extended to people of all means and abilities, including the people she is speaking about, and we will continue to do what is necessary to help them.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
The Minister for Women (Maria Caulfield)
This Conservative Government are the first Government to produce a women’s health strategy, and in the first year we are already delivering on our eight key priorities, many of which are in the major conditions work, including dementia, which is the leading killer of women, and musculoskeletal conditions such as osteoporosis. This shows that this Government are prioritising the improvement of women’s health across the board.
Nicola Richards
It is essential that the major conditions strategy helps to improve the care offered by the NHS, especially to women suffering from breast cancer. I recently visited Chai Cancer Care with my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey) to see the blueprint it has developed for how best to support those affected by cancer. Will the Minister congratulate Chai Cancer Care on its dedication to patients and families? And will she ensure that the major conditions strategy goes as far as possible to offer better, more joined-up care to women across the country?
Maria Caulfield
I thank my hon. Friend for her work in this space. She is a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on breast cancer, and she also has first-hand experience of the impact of breast cancer. I congratulate Chai Cancer Care and all the charities supporting women who are going through breast cancer. It is important that the major conditions strategy not only looks at improving clinical outcomes, which are important, but supports the care that women receive—women often undergo multiple treatments in different clinical settings. That is also a priority in the major conditions strategy.
Tom Randall
Last week, I had a long conversation with a constituent who is caring for her husband, who has had dementia for the past decade. We all know that many people like her, mainly women, are quietly caring for loved ones who are battling diseases outlined in the major conditions strategy. Does my hon. Friend agree that the experiences of these people need to be heard? Will she encourage them to take part in the call for evidence on the strategy before it closes at the end of this month?
Maria Caulfield
My hon. Friend is right on this and I encourage everyone to go to the gov.uk website, because the consultation closes at the end of the month. I mentioned that dementia is the leading cause of death in women, but many women are also caring for loved ones who are battling the disease, not just for days or weeks, but for months and years. As I said, this is about improving not just outcomes on dementia, but access and the support we provide to those who care for those with dementia. Listening to experts and experience is a key priority.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
We all welcome the major conditions strategy, but will the Minister reassure us about something? Women experience so many conditions differently from men, particularly in relation to heart attacks, and there is a lack of awareness about these things. Will the strategy examine how awareness of these differences and of symptoms to look for can be improved?
Maria Caulfield
The hon. Lady makes an excellent point, and one of our eight priorities in the first year is improving access to information. Later this summer, the NHS website will be launching a women’s information portal, which will be specifically about women’s health needs. So it will provide information on some of the key conditions that women suffer from, and it will be a go-to and reliable source for women on their health needs. She does well to raise this point.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for that response and for the £10 million that the Department has set aside for the breast screening programme on the UK mainland. In Northern Ireland, the number of those with breast cancer is rising, which is concerning. What steps will she take to ensure that the devolved nations are not left behind on outcomes for women?
Maria Caulfield
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He will know that health is a devolved issue, but we are working closely with all four nations, because we want to ensure that we have joined-up working, particularly in the screening programme, where we have some catching up to do post covid.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
The Minister for Equalities (Stuart Andrew)
This is the first opportunity I have had to pay tribute to our former colleague, and one of my closest friends, Karen Lumley. It was a privilege for me to call her a friend for nearly 35 years. We all remember her amazing character, infectious laugh and ever-changing coloured hair, but she was also proud to represent Redditch, she was a passionate defender of its people, she campaigned hard for the local hospital and she had public service in her core. Knowing her as I did, I can say that she was an amazing friend. It was also a great privilege to know her family, and my thoughts are with Richard, Lizzie and Chris, who are touched by the messages they have received from those in all parts of the House. God bless you, Karen. Rest in peace. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
It is June, it is Pride Month and it is a time for us all to celebrate the LGBT community and all it has to offer. It is also an opportunity to reflect on many of the challenges that LGBT people face, and I look forward to seeing what more can be done on those. I also look forward to visiting many organisations that support that community.
Chris Law
Members on these Benches would like to share our sympathies as well.
It is simply not good enough for the UK Government to absolve themselves of responsibility for the abhorrent practice of forced adoption, which affected hundreds of thousands of families from the 1940s to the 1970s. Rather than apologise on behalf of society, will the Minister finally find a backbone, acknowledge that the state failed to protect those affected and commit to issuing a formal apology on behalf of the UK Government, as the Scottish and Welsh Governments have already done?
Stuart Andrew
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comment at the beginning there. He raises an important point. Obviously, that issue is not within my portfolio area, but I will certainly take it up with the Minister responsible and come back to him on it, if he will allow me to do so.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
I thank my hon. Friend for campaigning on this issue. Having inclusive transport is important. He is right that the inclusive transport strategy is integral to our ambition to make transport fully accessible by 2030. My colleagues in the Department for Transport are committed to delivering that strategy to make real practical differences from accessible platforms through to accessible buses. We will be able to update him shortly with more progress.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The UK Government recently published statistics showing a 35% gender pension gap in private pensions, and recent research by the TUC suggests that more than one in 10 women are in jobs where their employers did not have to enter them into a workplace pension compared with fewer than one in 20 men. According to calculations from the Prospect union, the income gap between men and women in retirement is therefore now 40.5%, which is more than twice the level of the gender pay gap. What action is the Department taking with Cabinet colleagues to close that shameful gap?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
I do understand the hon. Lady’s point. We remain committed to our ambition to remove the lower earnings limit, as we set out in 2017. That will proportionately benefit the lowest earners the most, including women working part-time.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Maria Caulfield
We are committed to supporting female entrepreneurs, particularly in the high-growth sector. That is why we have launched the women-led high-growth enterprise taskforce, which has found that venture capital is a serious barrier. Currently, for every £1 of venture capital, 89p goes to companies led by men and only a penny to women. That is why getting access to venture capital and funding opportunities is a priority for female entrepreneurs.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Mims Davies
Our disability employment adviser is there to understand exactly those needs and support. I point people to the benefits calculator on gov.uk, and say that there will be further cost of living payment support. The House will be keen to know that the Minister of State for Disabled People, Health and Work will be joining the conference of states parties to the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and focusing on how we can get more people into work and progressing and thriving.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Stuart Andrew
At the moment, the Government have no plans to amend that Act. Obviously, we keep everything under further consideration.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Mims Davies
We have appointed a Government champion on menopause matters, Helen Tomlinson, who is doing sterling work. Our 50PLUS coaches in jobcentres are supporting women to progress, and I urge all employers to focus on supporting women, adjusting the workplace and listening to their needs so that 50-plus can be the most important, progressive and positive time of women’s working lives.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Some 78% of top UK energy companies have no women in executive director positions, and 28% have no women on the board. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to do far more to help women into science, technology, engineering and maths jobs?
Maria Caulfield
My hon. Friend is correct. We have made great progress in getting young girls to take STEM subjects—the numbers are up 31%—but the challenge is to get them into work. The FTSE women leaders review has set a target of 40% of FTSE 350 companies having women on their board. The STEM Returners programme is key to getting experienced women back into the workplace and on to those boards.
Mr Speaker
May I make an announcement? I want to tell the House about the success last night of the House of Commons teams in the tug-of-war. We beat the House of Lords 4-0.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister (Oliver Dowden)
I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in Washington at the invitation of President Biden. They will be discussing co-operation on a range of issues, including artificial intelligence and global trade, and of course continuing our leadership in galvanising international support for the people of Ukraine. This week is Carers Week, and I know colleagues across the House will wish to join me in paying tribute to the huge contribution that unpaid carers make to our society. This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
David Johnston
At the election, the Labour party committed to abolishing standard assessment tests, academy schools and Ofsted—three policies given to it by an education union that also opposed this Government’s use of phonics. Yet, thanks to this Government’s focus on phonics, English primary school children have just been ranked the best readers in Europe. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is another example of how, on the Conservative side, we have policy to meet the needs of children, rather than the demands of trade unionists?
The Deputy Prime Minister
It will not surprise my hon. Friend to hear that I absolutely agree with him. Driving up literacy rates is central to our plan to grow the economy, so I am delighted at those latest figures showing that children in England are the best readers in the western world. Why is that? Because, since 2010, we have raised the number of schools rated good or outstanding by nearly 30%. The verdict is clear: only the Conservatives can be trusted with our children’s future.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
Speaking of the last election, the Tory manifesto promised to end the abuse of the judicial review. How is it going?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I welcome the much shorter question from the right hon. Lady. Let me remind her of a few facts about the covid inquiry. We set it up, we have provided it with more than 55,000 documents so far, and we have given it all the financial resources it needs so that we can learn the lessons from the pandemic. However, in Wales they also had a pandemic, and what have the Labour-run Wales authorities done there? No independent inquiry in Wales. As ever, it is one rule for Labour and another for everyone else.
Angela Rayner
The Deputy Prime Minister pretends that it is complicated, but it is simple: the Government set up the inquiry to get to the truth, then blocked that inquiry from getting the information that it asked for, and now they are taking it to court. I know that he considers himself a man of the people, so using his vast knowledge of working-class Britain, does he think that working people will thank him for spending hundreds of thousands of pounds of their money on loophole lawyers so that the Government can obstruct the covid inquiry?
The Deputy Prime Minister
We will provide the inquiry with each and every document related to covid, including all internal discussions in any form, as requested, while, crucially, protecting what is wholly and unambiguously irrelevant. Essentially, the right hon. Lady is calling for years’ worth of documents and messages between named individuals to be in scope. That could cover anything from civil servants’ medical conditions to intimate details about their families.
I find it extraordinary that the right hon. Lady should lecture us on value for money for the taxpayer, when I understand that she has now purchased two pairs of noise-cancelling headphones on expenses. I will be fair to her: if I had to attend shadow Cabinet meetings, I think I would want to tune them out, too.
Mr Speaker
The Deputy Prime Minister was very good in saying that he welcomed short questions. I would also welcome shorter answers.
Angela Rayner
All we are asking for is what the covid inquiry has asked for. Across the world, covid inquiries are well under way, while this Government hide information and shell out public money on legal bills for the Uxbridge One—the former Prime Minister is now demanding another £1 million to pay for his new lawyers. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister and his former boss have fallen out, and maybe he wants to patch things up, but can he seriously say that that is a good use of taxpayers’ money?
The Deputy Prime Minister
If we want to talk about relationships between different people, I do not think that we need to search the right hon. Lady’s WhatsApp messages to know that there is no communication between her and the leader of her party. I will happily stand up for our record on covid. When she and her party were carping from the sidelines, calling for longer lockdowns, I was working as Culture Secretary to keep our football clubs running, protect our theatres and museums, and deliver the largest cultural recovery package in the western world. That is the difference between her and me: while she was collecting titles, I was getting on with the job.
Angela Rayner
I know that for the last couple of years the Deputy Prime Minister has been trying to prep Prime Ministers for PMQs, but these punchlines are dire—he really needs to go back to school himself. Speaking of school, thousands of children are missing from school; absence has nearly doubled since before the pandemic. The Prime Minister says that he has maxed out on his support for school pupils, but why did the Government abandon their plans for a register of missing children?
The Deputy Prime Minister
On the specifics of the right hon. Lady’s question, that is not the case: we continue to keep the policy under review. I am very proud of this Government’s record on funding and support for schools: £4 billion more this year, £4 billion next year, and the result of all that investment is that we have the highest standards of reading in the entire western world. What a contrast from when the Labour party was in power.
Angela Rayner
There we have it: thousands of children missing; policy “under review” still. Let me ask the Deputy Prime Minister about something else that has gone missing. The Public Accounts Committee this week revealed that Government fraud has increased fourfold, with Ministers overseeing the loss of £21 billion of taxpayers’ money in the last two years. Can he tell us how much of our money they expect to recover?
The Deputy Prime Minister
We are working tirelessly to recover those funds, and we have made huge progress already. The Labour party talks about good use of taxpayers’ money, but what do we have from it? Plans for an unfunded, £28 billion spending spree. What would that do? Drive up borrowing and push up interest rates, adding £1,000 to everyone’s mortgage. I know that the Opposition are out of touch, but even the right hon. Lady must realise that Britain cannot afford Labour.
Angela Rayner
Britain cannot afford any more of the Conservatives. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have lost count: the answer is that only a quarter of the billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money lost to fraud is expected to be clawed back. If the Government cannot get that public money back, they cannot be trusted with anything else. It has become a pattern of behaviour from the Conservatives—an inquiry missing evidence, schools missing pupils, taxpayers missing money and Ministers missing in action. All the while, working people pay the price for their mistakes. This week, the Public Accounts Committee also warned that this epic fraud and waste could happen all over again because Ministers are living in denial of the facts. If the Government cannot admit the truth, how on earth can they learn the lessons?
The Deputy Prime Minister
We are actually putting more resources in throughout this year to tackle fraud and error, and we continue to make real progress with it. This is quite extraordinary from the Labour party: while we work to drive down inflation and energy bills, the right hon. Lady is receiving £10,000 from Just Stop Oil backers, adopting their policies, backing protesters, blocking new production and forcing us to import more foreign oil and gas. For once, I find myself in agreement with the GMB union, which said that that is “naive”, has a “lack of intellectual rigour” and could decimate communities. Just like Labour.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I know that my hon. Friend is a tireless campaigner for this project, and I can assure him that the Department for Transport is working with Network Rail and East West Rail to consider the feasibility of lower-cost railway links on the Aylesbury spur. I know that he will continue to make that case vigorously.
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
When the Prime Minister took office, he said that he would put economic stability and confidence at the heart of the Government. Today, UK interest rates are among the highest in the G20, and mortgage rates are rising back to nearly where they were after the former Prime Minister crashed the economy. Is it not the case that the Government’s biggest achievement is that they are trashing the economy just a wee bit slower than their predecessor?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I do not know whether the hon. Lady has been following the news today, but the OECD has again upgraded our growth forecasts. A month ago, the whole nation came together to celebrate a wonderful moment of pomp, pageantry and pride in our nation. How did the hon. Lady describe it? She called it “a pantomime”. The real pantomime is the SNP in Scotland.
Mhairi Black
I do not know what question the Deputy Prime Minister was answering, but let me try another one. This Government plan to cut taxes for the richest and spend £6 billion imprisoning people fleeing war and persecution, and have lost £21 billion to Government fraud throughout this pandemic. Is the view from the Prime Minister’s luxury helicopter so skewed that during a cost of living crisis, he thinks that is what people’s priorities are?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I am going to take no lectures on profligacy from the SNP. Actually, what is it that this Government have done? We have provided record increases to the personal allowance, meaning that a person working full time on the minimum wage has seen a £1,000 reduction in their tax.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
That is precisely why we have created the levelling-up fund. There is £3.6 billion within that in the towns fund to be invested in high streets up and down the country. We will be outlining the third round of submissions to that fund, and I am quite sure that my hon. Friend will make a very vigorous case for funding for his constituency during that round.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Yesterday, I met Karen. Karen is a carer for her husband Alan, who has Parkinson’s and Lewy body dementia. She told me how hard it is to get people with power just to listen to her. Like so many carers, Karen feels her caring work just is not valued; at times, she has wanted to give up, but knows she must carry on because of her husband. Remarkable carers such as Karen save the Government more than the entire NHS budget, so will the Government finally recognise the value of Britain’s family carers and not just pay tribute to them, but give them the financial and practical support they deserve?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Of course, I would like to join the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to Karen and to hard-working unpaid carers up and down the country. I know he speaks from personal experience about this issue as well. We have provided £2.3 billion of support for social care, with an additional £25 million committed to putting people at the heart of care in the “People at the Heart of Care” White Paper, and £327 million is also committed to the better care fund.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I know from the vigorous campaigning of my hon. Friend that his constituents’ voice has been, and will be, heard. As he knows, I cannot comment on individual cases. What I can say is that I have experience of this in my own constituency, and I know what a blight can be created by those rail freight projects, so I do have every sympathy for the case that my hon. Friend is making.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
The Deputy Prime Minister
The Government and I have never been convinced by the case for a universal basic income. We are not alone in that; it is also the position of Paul Johnson at the Institute for Fiscal Studies. I think a much better solution is to create more jobs, which this Government have done, and to cut taxes on working people, which is what this Government have done. That is the route to prosperity for people up and down the country.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
As I am sure my hon. Friend knows, levelling-up partnerships are committed to work hand in hand with 20 places across England in most need of that levelling up. They are backed by £400 million of investment, and I know that he will make the case most robustly for funding for his constituency.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister
For the NHS as a whole, the Government have provided record additional funding. Indeed, since we came to power in 2010, funding is up £70 billion. In addition, in respect of social care, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has provided a further £2.3 billion of support to that vital sector.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northampton-shire) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I totally agree with my right hon. Friend, and I know what a tireless campaigner she has been on this issue, both in and out of government. I am happy to confirm that the so-called digital red book will be rolled out, and we expect it to be delivered over the course of the next two years.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I am not quite sure what the question was aiming at, but I can say to the hon. Gentleman that this Government have provided more than £3,000 of support to help people with the cost of living. Why have we been able to do that? It is thanks to the strength of our economy and the strength of our Union. What is happening in Scotland? The SNP Government are putting taxes up on ordinary, hard- working people.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
We want to ensure that all children are safe and have access to an excellent education. Of course, local authorities must seek to identify children missing in their area and ensure that they are safe. The Department for Education continues to undertake work to support swifter identification and greater support of children missing in education.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
In spite of Government spin to the contrary, the backlog of undetermined initial asylum claims has risen even since December from 160,000 to 170,000-plus. Caseworker numbers are down, and returns are still down. So will the Deputy Prime Minister agree to meet me to hear my constituents’ concerns about the Home Secretary’s plans to commandeer yet another hotel, the Stradey Park in the village of Furnace, and explain what more he will do to speed up clearing the backlog so as to return people to safe countries, settle genuine refugees and avoid the need to use the Stradey Park hotel?
The Deputy Prime Minister
This Government will take whatever action is necessary both to clear the backlog and to stop the boats. Actually, as the hon. Member may have heard from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, small boat arrivals to the UK are down 20% this year, our French deal has prevented 33,000 illegal crossings this year, Albanian arrivals are down 90%, we have removed 1,800 Albanians, we have increased the number of illegal working raids and the legacy asylum backlog is now down 20%.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising what I am sure Members on both sides of this House will agree is a heartbreaking case, and I know that all our thoughts will be with Semina’s family and her friends. All children of course have the right to be safe and protected. I understand that the Department for Education will shortly begin consulting on strengthening statutory guidance to ensure that health agencies, police forces and councils work together more collaboratively and end decisions that prevent putting children’s needs at the heart of their work. Of course, I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend and for Health Department Ministers to meet him also.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Huntington’s disease eventually robs sufferers of their ability to walk, talk, eat, care for themselves and make decisions. It changes the person they were, and it has a 50% chance of being inherited by their children. Will the Government back the Huntington’s disease community’s call for better access to mental health services, a care co-ordinator in every area and specific National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance so that everyone affected by this devastating condition can get the help they need?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the devastating impact of this terrible disease. We have significantly increased investment in mental health. I am, of course, happy to arrange for Department of Health Ministers to meet him to discuss this further.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I would actually argue that choral music is possibly one of our greatest contributions to global culture. I really do join my hon. Friend in congratulating Johns’ Boys Male Chorus on their fantastic achievement in reaching the semi-final of “Britain’s Got Talent”, and I am sure that they will continue to entertain and engage communities for many years to come.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
The Government post of anti-corruption champion has been vacant for over a year. Does the Deputy Prime Minister think that the vacancy increases or decreases the risk of corruption in Government?
The Deputy Prime Minister
In my Department, the Cabinet Office, I am working very closely with my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General. We are taking extensive steps to ensure that we crack down on fraud and waste and that procurement is transparent. Of course, we will be filling that vacancy very shortly.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The furlough scheme helped to protect about 14.6 million jobs during that terrible covid crisis. But what do we discover? Labour is taking £1.5 million from Just Stop Oil backers and adopting their policy to block new oil and gas. It is job-destroying recklessness, and unfortunately it is hard-working people who will be left paying the price.
Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)
In West Lancashire, my constituents are concerned about their children’s education and specifically the ongoing long-term impact of covid-19 restrictions on their educational development. A Public Accounts Committee report out today finds that the Department for Education is failing to take fast and effective recovery action to close the attainment gap in schools, and the Department has admitted that it will take a decade—10 years—just to get the education attainment gap back to pre-pandemic levels. So when will the Government stop blaming everyone else and take responsibility for failing a generation of lost learners?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Actually, before covid struck, the attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and their peers had narrowed in both primary and secondary schools under the Government. Since covid struck, we have provided almost £5 billion for education recovery. If the hon. Lady is that concerned about children’s education, she should be calling on the education unions to call off their damaging strikes.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I offer my strongest support to my hon. Friend’s campaign; he is absolutely right to raise it. I question the extent of my powers to intervene on a bar closure in his constituency, but I will certainly examine what we can do further.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
The East West Rail announcement proposes a six-track route that will impact at least 66 properties in Bedford, including the demolition of 37 homes. Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell me why residents’ concerns have been ignored? Will he give me a commitment today that, if the majority of residents are against the plan in the statutory consultation, his Government will not approve the proposal?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Of course, we will engage with local communities, but I find it rather odd that the Labour party has been saying for the past few months that it wants to build more housing and more infrastructure and, as soon as there is a proposal to do so, which will enormously enrich the area, it is being opposed.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I assure my hon. Friend that the United Kingdom and His Majesty’s Government remain steadfast in their support for Gibraltar. We are working side by side with the Government of Gibraltar and we remain committed to concluding that UK-EU treaty as soon as possible.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Today, the OECD said that the UK is on course to have a higher rate of inflation than almost all other G20 countries. It is families in Putney and up and down the country who will be suffering because of that. Will the Deputy Prime Minister finally commit to introducing a proper windfall tax on the enormous profits of the oil and gas giants and take pressure off struggling households?
The Deputy Prime Minister
We actually introduced a bigger windfall tax than the Labour party was proposing. Thanks to that 75% windfall tax, last winter, we paid half of people’s energy bills. The hon. Lady talked about the OECD. What she failed to mention is that the OECD today gave the highest upgrade of growth to the United Kingdom compared with any other country.
Bill Presented
Food Poverty Strategy Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish a strategy for ending the need for food banks by 2030; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time Friday 24 November, and to be printed (Bill 320).
Road Safety (Cycle Helmets)
Wednesday 7th June 2023
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Road Safety (Cycle Helmets) Bill 2022-23 View all Road Safety (Cycle Helmets) Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require a person riding a bicycle on the public highway to wear a safety helmet; and for connected purposes.
Back in November 2015, my then 15-year-old constituent, Oliver Dibsdale, was cycling along Hillmorton High Street in Rugby when his foot slipped off the pedal and he fell. He hit his head on the kerb and was left with a serious brain injury. He spent four weeks in critical care and a further 15 weeks at Birmingham Children’s Hospital and the Central England Rehabilitation Unit in Leamington Spa.
Oliver had hoped to be in the Public Gallery here today, but because of the severity of his disability he would have needed two support staff to accompany him from Rugby and had to meet the significant cost of their travel expenses. Oliver was told by his doctor, Dr Badwan, that, had he been wearing a helmet, he may still have sustained an injury, but it would have been far less severe. When I met Oliver, he told me that he usually wore a helmet when cycling and that he bitterly regrets his decision on that occasion to ride without one. He spoke to me in a very moving way about the impact his injury has had on his family and the guilt he feels for the amount of time they have had to spend caring for him. He very much wants to help other families to avoid this fate. The Bill will achieve that aim.
The mandatory wearing of cycle helmets has been considered in Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) introduced the Bicycles (Children’s Safety Helmets) Bill as long ago as 2007. A broader debate took place on the topic of cycling safety in Westminster Hall on 21 November 2012, when nine Members took part. At a personal level, on a recent family holiday, we rented bikes. When the person serving us offered me a helmet, I initially declined. He then looked me in the eye and asked, “Just how many brains do you have, sir?” I took the hint and I took the helmet, but there is not always someone on hand to offer such advice and ensure a helmet is worn. And as anybody who has children will know, children do not always take that advice. Oliver makes the point that it will be far easier for parents to insist that their children wear a helmet if it becomes a legal requirement.
When Oliver first contacted me nearly two years ago, he asked whether the Government would consider making cycle helmets a legal requirement. He explained his circumstances: six years after his accident, he remains in a wheelchair and is likely to do so for the rest of his life; he has lost the use of his left arm; and he has missed so much that his peers have experienced. He finds it extremely frustrating whenever he sees cyclists on the road without helmets because, from his personal experience, he knows all too well the risk they are taking.
After my meeting with Oliver, I wrote on his behalf to the Department for Transport and received an explanation of the work undertaken as part of the cycling and walking investment strategy of 2017 and the subsequent consultation in 2018. The focus of this work has rightly been to increase levels of cycling and walking and to make the UK’s roads safer for vulnerable users, including cyclists. Following that work, the Department’s clear advice to all cyclists, as set out in rule 59 of the highway code, is that cyclists should wear helmets, but the Government do not intend to legislate. I shared the Government’s response with Oliver at my advice surgery. He continues to contest it and makes a compelling case from his own experience for helmets to be mandatory.
To take his case further, I arranged for Oliver to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), then Minister for Transport. Oliver was very pleased to have the opportunity to make his case here in Westminster to the Minister and I thank my hon. Friend for accommodating us. We had an excellent discussion but, to Oliver’s disappointment, the Government’s position remains unchanged—that the wearing of helmets should be a matter of choice, not compulsory.
Oliver continues to disagree and draws attention to a number of counts. He points out that it is illegal to drive a car without a seatbelt and that it is compulsory to wear a helmet on a motorcycle. To this, those who oppose mandatory wearing of cycle helmets respond that, unlike travelling by car and motorbike, there is a health benefit from using a bicycle, there should not be any discouragement of cycling and some people might be put off cycling, thereby reducing the wider health and environmental benefits. Oliver replies to this that, if people want to exercise, there are many ways of doing so that present less risk; he points out that people can walk, run, take up a sport or go to the gym.
A further line of argument cited by opponents to mandatory wearing of cycle helmets is that legislation would be difficult to enforce. While it would certainly create an additional burden on the police, it does not strike me as particularly difficult to enforce compared with other offences: it is easier to spot a cyclist without a helmet than to spot a driver using a mobile phone, or a car passenger without a seatbelt. No one here suggests that wearing seatbelts should be a matter of individual choice on the basis of difficulties in enforcing the current legislation.
In support of mandatory wearing of helmets, a 2016 review and analysis of previous research, undertaken by Jake Olivier and Prudence Creighton, drew on data from 64,000 injured cyclists. They found very large protective effects from helmets, estimating 85% and 88% reductions in head and brain injury respectively for helmeted cyclists relative to unhelmeted. The House of Commons Library notes that pedal cyclists are 23 times more likely to be a casualty and more likely to die on the road than a motorist. If mandatory safety measures are acceptable for car drivers, they should also be acceptable for cyclists.
Cyclists are the most vulnerable road users. Given all the data about how much safer cyclists are when they wear a helmet and the strong arguments from Oliver—a person who acknowledges that his life has been transformed by the simple failure to put on his helmet that fateful day in 2015—this Bill to mandate the wearing of helmets by cyclists is intended to ensure that far fewer cyclists have to suffer the experience that Oliver went through and has to live with every day of his life. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mark Pawsey, Judith Cummins, Dan Carden, Mr Peter Bone and Dr Luke Evans present the Bill.
Mark Pawsey accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November, and to be printed (Bill 321).
Opposition Day
Mental Health Treatment and Support
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
15:56 - The House divided: - Ayes: 185 / Noes: 280 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:11 - The House divided: - Ayes: 278 / Noes: 0 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Speaker
I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House notes with concern the scale of the mental health crisis facing the country with patients suffering with mental health issues waiting more than 5.4 million hours in accident and emergency last year; further notes with concern the mental health crisis facing young people with nearly 400,000 children currently waiting for treatment; recognises the health inequalities within the use of the Mental Health Act 1983; and calls on the Government to adopt Labour’s plan to recruit thousands of mental health staff to expand access to treatment, to provide access to specialist mental health support in every school, to establish open access mental health hubs for children and young people and to bring in the first ever long-term, whole-Government plan to improve outcomes for people with mental health needs.
After 13 years in office, this Government have delivered the worst mental health crisis in our history. We are becoming a brittle, anxious, fractious society, the very bonds of which are frayed and torn. The causes of mental ill health are complex: poverty, homelessness, neglect, loneliness, debt, bereavement, domestic violence and child and adult trauma. Our understanding of mental health is developing all the time. We have moved on in the years since I trained as a doctor. We can now see how interlinked and enmeshed the range of factors is: warm and safe homes, fulfilling work, strong relationships, safe streets, opportunities to learn, fresh air and green spaces are policies for good mental health.
Nye Bevan talked about the serenity in knowing that medical care is free at the point of need. After 13 years of Conservatives, we are far from serene. For many of the families I meet, the future is filled with dark clouds, fear of displacement and debt, and a sense that society is going to hell in a handcart—a Britain where nothing works, where everything is broken and where everything costs more than six months ago. Zero-hours contracts, boarded up high streets, rapacious landlords, rising lawlessness and antisocial behaviour and the long-term effects of covid—no wonder we are in the grip of a mental health crisis.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I am very pleased with the way my hon. Friend has started her speech, because she is absolutely right. Alongside the additional healthcare staff needed and the many measures that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) and I have been spelling out for the health service, the society that has been created over the past 13 years of austerity has had massive impact on the mental health crisis. I am glad that my hon. Friend has focused on that. It will be the job of the entire future Labour Government to support her and her colleagues to reduce the mental health crisis.
Dr Allin-Khan
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; he is right. I will talk about the need for mental health not to exist in a silo later in my remarks. Frankly, it is the problem of every single Government Department.
One in four people experiences a problem with their mental health each year in England. One in six people experiences a mental health condition, such as anxiety or depression, each week. Three in four people with mental ill health in England receive little or no treatment for their condition. And people with the most severe mental illnesses die up to 20 years sooner than the general population. I ask the House to reflect on that for a moment. Tragically, in 2021, over 5,000 suicides were registered, up by 300 on the previous year. The Government should wear these statistics like a badge of shame.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Reclaim)
The shadow Minister makes an accurate assessment of the size of the mental health crisis facing our nation, but her words would have more resonance if she and her party had not voted in lockstep with the Government for the disastrous lockdowns that damaged mental health, especially that of our young people. Will she apologise?
Dr Allin-Khan
I will take no lectures from the hon. Member, because he proudly sat as a Member of a Government who oversaw hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths. Families are still feeling the ongoing mental effects of losing loved ones because of the mishandling of the pandemic by his then Government.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the Leader of the Opposition, launched Labour’s mission for health in May. He said:
“Suicide is the biggest killer of young lives in this country, the biggest killer. That statistic should haunt us, and the rate is going up. Our mission—must be and will be—to get it down.”
He is right. Across the House, we are increasingly hearing brave, moving and revealing testimonies about our own experiences and struggles. It is vital that we challenge the stigma and talk openly about mental health.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
My hon. Friend and I have worked on these issues over the last couple of years. She knows that 70% of people who enter treatment for alcohol issues also experience trouble with their mental health. The Public Accounts Committee recently released a report on alcohol treatment services, and recommendation 4 called on the Government to set out, without delay
“what it is doing to help improve integrated care for people with co-occurring alcohol and mental health problems.”
Will she use her position today to encourage the Government to act on that recommendation?
Dr Allin-Khan
I could not be more proud to work with my hon. Friend in this space. He is a powerful advocate and I wholeheartedly support all his efforts, and those of Members across the House, to support people who are living with alcoholism, and their families. I thank him; we will continue to support his work.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the shadow Minister and the Labour party for bringing this issue forward. Support for mental health across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a massive issue, including in my constituency. For example, one of my constituents told me they finally found the courage to seek help for their mental health, only to be told by health professionals, “We can’t do anything for you just now as your condition is not severe enough yet—you have no thoughts of suicide.” Does the hon. Lady agree that supporting those with mental health issues at the earliest stage—right away—is more beneficial, instead of forcing them to wait until it may be too late? At that stage, the situation cannot be turned back.
Dr Allin-Khan
I thank the hon. Member; it has been a pleasure to work with him in every single debate about mental health that I have held in the past three years, since I started my role. He speaks to the important point that prevention is the watchword that counts when it comes to mental health.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does she agree that the Government are failing people who are experiencing mental ill health, or even a mental health crisis? Psychiatrists are leaving the country because they are finding jobs overseas more accessible. People experiencing mental health crises are having to wait in A&E departments for too long; they waited for a total of 5.4 million hours during 2021, which is entirely unacceptable. Things need to change.
Dr Allin-Khan
I thank my hon. Friend for assisting me in writing my speech; she has pre-empted much of what is to come. She is a powerful advocate for her community and I am proud to share the Opposition Benches with her.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
On that point, will the shadow Minister give way?
Dr Allin-Khan
I will make some progress, but I would be happy to take further interventions after that.
Amid all the anguish and pain, one thing comes through: people cannot access the mental health services they need. The stark fact is that the way the UK’s mental health services are funded and distributed can exacerbate the problem, so instead of making people better, they are making them worse.
The current reality is that 1.6 million people are waiting for treatment. More than 1 million people had their referral closed without receiving any help in the last year alone. Last year, children in mental health crisis spent more than 900,000 hours in A&E and almost 400,000 children are on waiting lists. In the same period, adults experiencing a mental health crisis spent over 5.4 million hours in A&E. Black people are five times more likely to be detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 than white people. People with eating disorders are being put on a palliative care pathway.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Will the shadow Minister join me in welcoming the work the Government have done to bring forward the draft Mental Health Bill? We both sat on the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee. Hopefully, the Bill will right some of those wrongs.
Dr Allin-Khan
It has been a pleasure to work with the hon. Member on the draft Mental Health Bill. However, as I will say later in my speech, I have little confidence that the draft Mental Health Bill will move beyond the draft stage. We need to debate the issues in the House, to ensure that what we know needs to be fixed is actually fixed, so that we can help people in our communities, including black people, who are more likely to be detained under the Mental Health Act, and people with autism and neurodiversity, who are mistreated simply as a result of having that diagnosis, so that their lives can be better lived. We need these issues to come before the House, so that we can debate them and move forward.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an important point about the demand on A&E, but there is demand on other public services as well. When I have been out with the police in south Manchester, I have been shocked by the sheer amount of time they spend dealing with people in mental health crisis. I am sure we all know the amount of time our staff spend dealing with people in mental health crisis. Does she agree that it is a false economy not to invest properly in mental health services, because of the impact on other public services?
Dr Allin-Khan
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point; he is right. It is also a false economy because of the impact mental ill health has on families. Not investing in one person’s mental ill health not only has an impact on their working and earning potential, but has a knock-on impact on that of their parents, siblings and other family members. People are currently sitting at home on suicide watch for their children because they cannot get access to the timely help and treatment they need. This is Tory Britain.
What has been the response from the Government to these alarming facts? Ministers have junked the 10-year mental health plan and binned thousands of responses to the consultation. Seni’s law, set out in a private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed), passed unanimously, but it has not been fully implemented. It was passed almost five years ago and there have been three subsequent Ministers, and yet we are in the highly unusual situation where it has not been commenced in full. Who exactly is against the monitoring of the disproportionate use of force? The House certainly was not against it when the Bill was passed.
The Government have announced plans for new mental health hospitals, but those new hospitals are not new. The hospitals announced on 25 May—Surrey and Borders, Derbyshire and Merseycare—were already in the pipeline.
Let us talk about the Minister’s own patch, to really see the scale of the issue. At his closest hospital, adults experiencing a mental health crisis waited 11,000 hours in A&E last year. There are over 5,000 children and 40,000 adults stuck on mental health waiting lists across his integrated care board. Thousands of local people were turned away from services before treatment; I am sure the Minister will agree that that is unacceptable. As ever, we have smoke and mirrors when we need bricks and mortar. If this seems bleak, that is because it is.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech about a very important issue. One of my constituents who works in psychiatric care has talked of staff having to deal with violence, verbal abuse, being swilled with boiling water and more. He says that they are under extreme pressure, which is causing some to leave and putting more pressure on those who remain. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a shocking and unsustainable state of affairs, and that we need a Labour Government who will invest in mental health services?
Dr Allin-Khan
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who works tirelessly on this issue.
After more than a decade of Tory Governments, if people need help, all too often no one is there. Last year, emergency service workers took more than a million sick days because of stress. NHS staff are at the sharp end of this mental health crisis. I know them, I work with them, and I see what they are coping with daily. They are heroes, but they simply do not have the resources, the staff or the leadership from Ministers that would enable them to do their jobs. They themselves suffer exhaustion, depression, stress and anxiety. About 17,000 staff—12% of the mental health workforce—left last year.
You will be pleased to know that I have had a look at the Government’s amendment, Mr Speaker—I do my homework. There is the tired old £2.3 billion figure. How many times have we heard that trotted out? Actually, I can tell the House that it has been used more than 90 times over five years, and it has been spent in myriad different ways. Then there is the £150 million for mental health crisis units. But the amendment fails to mention the serious patient safety concerns that doctors have raised, and it is clear that the pressure on A&E remains as fierce as ever. There is also nothing about the recent announcement from the Metropolitan police that they will not help people in a mental health crisis.
Ministers need to get out of Whitehall and see what is really happening in our mental health service. If they did so, they would see what I have seen in recent months. They would see the junior psychiatrists whom I met recently—junior doctors who have devoted all their training to this profession, and half of whom plan to leave the NHS at the end of their training. They would see the doctor who told me of an incident in which six police officers were in A&E for 18 hours with a patient detained under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983. They would see a child arriving at A&E after self-harming, having been referred by the GP a long time ago but not been seen for weeks, which led to an escalation point and a crisis in A&E. We are seeing a system in crisis, people in pain and families in distress.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The shadow Minister has referred several times to children’s mental health and the crisis that often occurs when they present at A&E departments. Does she agree that schools have an important role to play when children have moderate mental health conditions, before those conditions escalate? The role of mental health support teams in schools is critical, but their funding is due to end abruptly next year, with only about half the programme complete. Will she join me in asking the Minister to commit himself to funding the full roll-out of mental health support teams or, better still, to back the Liberal Democrats’ plan to provide a qualified mental health practitioner in every school?
Dr Allin-Khan
I invite the hon. Member to have a look at the plans we already have in place. She will be pleased to learn that one of our pledges is the provision of a mental health specialist in every school. I invite her to support those Labour plans—and to come and join us over here if she feels like it.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Young people are bearing the brunt of the mental health crisis, and parents are worried sick. I see evidence of that every day in my inbox, and it is getting worse. When so little money is being spent on young people’s mental health, even though we know that the vast majority of mental health conditions appear in people under the age of 18, is the balance right between the money spent on adult mental health and that spent on young people’s mental health? If we want a preventive system that helps to cut costs for the taxpayer and helps people as well, is not investing early in young people the best way to achieve that?
Dr Allin-Khan
My hon. Friend is spot on in making the point, very articulately, that prevention is our watchword. It is vital that we have mental health access hubs in every community to give people the support that they need; it is essential that we have mental health specialist support in every school; and it is essential that mental health does not operate in a Health silo, because when it comes to improving adverse childhood experiences that can lead to poor mental health in later life, that is every Department’s issue.
I have asked Ministers six times to tell us of their meetings with mental health trusts where there are reported abuse scandals, but they have failed to respond. In-patient services across England must be reviewed, with patients’ voices at the centre. After a series of allegations in different settings, the Government have dragged their feet, and we are still waiting for the findings of their data exercise, in which no one even spoke to families or patients. They could start by giving statutory powers to the inquiry into deaths in Essex mental health units.
What else needs to change? First, we need to speed up diagnosis and treatment. The longer we leave a mental health disorder untreated, the worse it gets—just like cancer, sepsis and heart conditions. Delays cost patients their wellbeing and their families their peace of mind, and of course it costs the taxpayer more to treat a patient who is more acutely unwell after months and years of delay. The argument for prevention, early intervention, speedy diagnosis and timely treatment is clear. Labour will guarantee treatment within a month for all who need it, which will be better for patients and better for the NHS.
Secondly, we need a tough new target for delivery—something for the whole system to drive for, and something for the voters to judge us on. Labour will recruit 8,500 new staff, so that 1 million more people can access treatment every year by the end of Labour’s first term in office.
Thirdly, we will reach out to our young people, and give the next generation the support that they desperately need. This is the generation who have known little or no security: children who have gone through the great financial crash, austerity and covid, robbed of their future and dismissed as snowflakes. We will open a mental health access hub for children and young people in every community, providing early intervention and drop-in services, and we will provide access to a mental health professional in every school. This is a true community, preventive approach in action.
Fourthly, we will stop mental health policy being placed in a silo. As I said at the beginning of my speech, mental health policy cannot be disentangled from social and economic policy. A decision on Bank of England interest rates takes its toll on the mental health of a family in Tooting. We are all interconnected. The economy is not an abstract concept; it is people. The next Labour Government will present a long-term, whole-Government plan to improve mental health outcomes—mental health in all policies.
Fifthly, Labour Ministers will allocate to mental health its fair share of funding, as the economy grows and as resources allow. For starters, we will close tax loopholes, putting the country’s mental health first. That is our plan and, crucially, it will not be solely the responsibility of the incoming new mental health Minister; it will be the responsibility of the whole Cabinet and the whole Government.
We have seen enough plans, we have heard enough announcements, and we have watched enough Ministers pass in and out of the revolving doors of 39 Victoria Street. Let us have no more Tory sticking plasters. Labour’s health mission, guided by prevention and anchored in community, gives children the best start and boosts the economy, with more people in better health. With a clear plan, with clear costings and with resolute leadership, we will deliver the world-class health system that our society truly deserves.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Neil O’Brien)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
“notes the increased burden on mental health following the pandemic, including on young people and those with severe mental illness; recognises the historic levels of investment being delivered by this Government into services, with an increase of £2.3 billion per year in front-line mental health funding over the past four years; notes that current NHS targets around access to talking therapies and intervention in psychosis are being met due to the efforts of NHS staff; and acknowledges the investment in mental health teams in schools, as well as the ongoing investment into open access mental health helplines in the 111 service and into the estate, including three new mental health hospitals to be opened in the next two years accompanied by a further £150 million in investment in new mental health ambulances and the development of better alternatives to accident and emergency services, including crisis houses, safe havens and step-down services.”
Improving mental health is a top priority for this Government. We can all agree that in the past it was not given the priority it deserves, and was seen as something to be ashamed of and not spoken about. Thankfully, we are changing that. We are working to achieve parity of esteem between physical health and mental health, with record amounts of investment going into NHS mental health services in England, and the stigma surrounding mental health is being reduced.
“The Five Year Forward View for Mental Health”, which was published in 2016, was a major step forward and secured an additional £1 billion in funding for mental health, so that an additional 1 million people could access high-quality services by 2020-21. It was followed by the NHS long-term plan in 2019, which committed an additional £2.3 billion a year for the expansion and transformation of mental health services in England by 2024, so that an additional 2 million people could get the NHS-funded mental health support that they need. It is also funding the increase in the frontline mental health workforce to meet the plan’s ambition for 27,000 additional mental health staff by 2023-24. There were 138,610 full-time equivalent mental health staff at the end of 2022, an increase of 8,900 on the previous year and of 20,700 on December 2010, so the mental health workforce in the NHS is radically bigger. In total, we spent around £3 billion more on mental health last year compared with four years ago. That is an increase of a quarter.
Backed by this huge investment, we are expanding access to NHS talking therapies for adults to meet the long-term plan’s ambition for an additional 1.9 million people to access National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-approved treatments for conditions such as anxiety and depression. From starting small in 2008, around 1.2 million people are now accessing NHS talking therapies every year, with 98% waiting less than 18 weeks for their treatment and 90% waiting less than six weeks. This means that we are delivering well over our national waiting time targets of 95% and 75% respectively.
Local mental health services are transforming community mental health care to give 370,000 adults and older adults with severe mental illnesses greater choice and control over their care and to support them to live well in their communities. We recognise that poor mental health is a major cause of sickness absence in the workplace and we are providing support to employees and employers on mental health in the workplace. We have announced additional measures to support workplace mental health, including a package to support the long-term sick and disabled to remain in or return to work. This includes £200 million for digital mental health to modernise NHS talking therapies, to provide free access to wellness and clinical mental health apps for the population, and to pilot cutting-edge digital therapeutics. There will be around £75 million to expand individual placement and support services to help more people with severe mental health illnesses into employment.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Will the Minister give way?
Neil O’Brien
I will make a little progress first.
We know that the number of children and young people experiencing mental ill health is rising, and that many of them will continue to experience mental health problems later in life. Spending on children and young people’s mental health continues to grow, from £841 million in 2019-20 to £995 million a year later, and now to £1.1 billion in 2022-23. This means that we are helping more children and young people than ever before. In 2021-22, there were over 743,000 new referrals to children’s and young people’s mental health services, which is 41% higher than the year before.
Several hon. Members rose—
Neil O’Brien
I will make a bit of progress before I give way.
The long-term plan will ensure that 345,000 more children and young people can get the mental health support they need when they need it.
We are committed to ensuring that children and young people can access mental health support in school, so that they can access help with anxiety and depression and other common mental health services before problems become more serious. In that way, we can prevent—in exactly the way we all agree on—the problems from becoming more serious. That includes continuing to roll out mental health support teams to schools and colleges in England.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
The picture that the Minister is painting does not quite tally with the experience that I am seeing in families, many of whom are watching with a feeling of helplessness as their children’s mental health deteriorates while they are on long waiting lists. In the NHS South West London ICB area, there are over 10,000 young people on waiting lists, and many have their cases closed without even getting the support they need. That leaves them with deteriorating mental health and it leaves their families in despair. How is it that the money the Minister is talking about does not seem to get through to the young people who need help?
Neil O’Brien
I will come to the point about waiting lists in a moment.
Let me complete my thoughts on prevention, which I think we all agree is important. There are 3.4 million pupils covered by mental health support teams in 2022-23, which equates to about 35% coverage of pupils in schools and learners in further education in England. We expect around 500 teams to be up and running by 2024, covering around 44% of pupils and learners, so it will be up from 35% to 44%. Over 10,000 schools and colleges now have a trained senior mental health lead, including more than six in 10 state-funded secondary schools in England. On prevention, the Government are also providing £150 million of capital investment in NHS mental health urgent and emergency care infrastructure over the next two years.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
While the Minister is addressing the issue of young people, can I say that I have yet to hear any news from the Department as to whether there will be a public inquiry into the deaths of the three young women who died under the care of the Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys Foundation NHS Trust. Can he enlighten me on that?
Neil O’Brien
This is an extremely important issue that the hon. Gentleman is quite right to raise. We will be producing the results of the rapid review in the coming weeks, so he will not have to wait very long.
Munira Wilson
Like other colleagues, I see many children in my constituency waiting well over a year, sometimes two years, to access child and adolescent mental health services, so I was alarmed when NHS England recently told me that, on the latest modelling, the number of NHS-commissioned training posts in London for child and adolescent psychiatry will halve by 2031. I have no idea what is driving this modelling, but given that one in six seven to 16-year-olds have a probable mental health disorder, will the Minister at least look into these figures and undertake to write to me to explain why we are seeing such a drop in the number of training places?
Neil O’Brien
Those are not figures that I am familiar with or recognise, but I will certainly take this up with the London commissioners because it sounds like an important issue. I have talked about the dramatic increase we have already seen in the mental health workforce, and we are setting out further steps in our long-term workforce plan, but I will take that away and look at it closely with other Ministers.
Mr Toby Perkins
One of the issues here is that the demand for mental health services has gone through the roof, from 3.6 million in 2020-21 to 4.5 million in 2021-22. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) was clear in her view, which I share, that the policies of this Government have been a factor in driving up the mental health demand. Does the Minister accept that? If not, what does he put it down to?
Neil O’Brien
I was just coming to that, but on the point about prevention and the social origins of these things, we are in agreement about tackling the origins of these things. In terms of financial security, that is why we are providing financial help worth £3,300 per household, one of the most dramatically generous packages anywhere in Europe. The question of good housing was raised earlier. We have the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill and we are taking action to extend the decent homes standard to the private rented sector.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
Is it not the case that we have to be really careful about what we are talking about? There is a difference between mental wellbeing and mental health. We all suffer with our mental wellbeing but we do not all suffer with our mental health, and we therefore need to have the support that is appropriate. Social prescribing, for example, has a fundamental ability to help people who suffer with their mental wellbeing. Are the Government doing anything more to drive up social prescribing, so that GPs and allied professions can get the support from the third sector and other voluntary organisations that people so desperately need for their mental wellbeing?
Neil O’Brien
My hon. Friend, as an experienced clinician, makes an important and thoughtful point. This is exactly why we have so dramatically increased the number of social prescribers in primary care. An example in Britain is the parkrun practices initiative, which is connecting people to sporting and cultural activities that can improve mental wellbeing as well as mental health. My hon. Friend is completely right, and that is why this is a priority for us.
Andrew Bridgen
The suicide rate in North West Leicestershire increased by more than 300% during the lockdown. Does the Minister know what the increase was in his constituency?
Neil O’Brien
It is just not true there was an increase in suicides because of the lockdowns. There have been a whole series of careful studies of this and that is just not the case. I am afraid that my hon. Friend is not correct about this.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Eating disorders are a national scandal and have reached epidemic proportions. Anorexia nervosa has the highest mortality rate of any mental health disorder and a third of people with binge eating disorders are at suicide risk. With at least 125 million people suffering from eating disorders and with soaring waiting lists, is it not time that the Government appointed something like an eating disorder prevention champion to tackle this incredibly difficult but rising crisis?
Neil O’Brien
I completely agree about its tremendous importance, and I take this opportunity to mention the incredible work on this hugely important issue by brilliant charities such as Beat. I will outline some of the general things we are doing to increase capacity further.
Janet Daby
Only a few weeks ago, I met a constituent who endured an awful kidnapping and rape. She had some initial counselling and therapy from specialist services, but she has now been on the waiting list for more than a year and a half. What would the Minister say to my constituent, who desperately needs therapy?
Neil O’Brien
I am terribly sorry to hear about the hon. Lady’s constituent’s case, which I will look at extremely closely. This is why we are putting in extra investment and tackling waiting lists.
Several hon. Members rose—
Neil O’Brien
I should make a little progress before taking further interventions.
The Government are providing £150 million of capital investment in the NHS’s urgent and emergency care infrastructure for mental health over the next two years. Those interventions include £7 million for 90 new mental health ambulances, with the remaining £143 million going to more than 160 capital projects with a preventive focus. These include new urgent assessment and care centres, crisis cafés and crisis houses, health-based places of safety for people detained by the police and improvements to the NHS 111 and urgent mental health helplines. The hon. Member for Tooting talked about creating such facilities in the community, and we are already doing that. We are also investing £400 million between 2020-21 and 2023-24 to eradicate mental health dormitory accommodation, improving safety and dignity for patients. Twenty-nine projects have already been completed since the programme commenced in 2020-21, eradicating over 500 dormitory beds.
Dr Ben Spencer
Will the Minister join me in welcoming the construction of the new Abraham Cowley unit, which will eradicate the dormitories that were in my constituency?
Neil O’Brien
I join my hon. Friend in celebrating that unit and his advocacy for people affected by mental health.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for giving way, as I appreciate that he is trying to make progress. On the capital programme, one of the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) highlighted is Seni’s law, which will look at the treatment that patients receive in mental health units, where, sadly, restraint has led to deaths. The Minister talks about prevention, and we need to make sure that Seni’s law, which was enacted in November 2018, comes forward now. Does he agree?
Neil O’Brien
The remaining provisions will be commenced as soon as possible.
We are working with the NHS towards implementing new waiting time standards for people requiring urgent and emergency mental healthcare, in both A&E and the community, to ensure timely access to the most appropriate high-quality support. We also recognise that there is much more to be done to improve people’s experience in in-patient mental health facilities. The Minister with responsibility for mental health, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), has spoken to many Members following reports of abuse and care failings at a number of NHS and independent providers. We have been clear that anyone receiving treatment in an in-patient mental health facility deserves to receive safe, high-quality care and to be looked after with dignity and respect.
It is vital that, where care falls short, we learn from any mistakes to improve care across the NHS and to protect patients. That is why we have conducted a rapid review of mental health in-patient settings, with a specific focus on how we use data and evidence, including from complaints, feedback and whistleblowing reports, to identify risks to safety.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
The Minister wants to talk about data and evidence. We know that, within the mental health crisis, there are huge, long-established racial disparities, with young black men disproportionately being sectioned under the Mental Health Act 1983. The draft mental health Bill is still in train, and I would like to know exactly when the Government will table the Bill, which might stop these racial disparities and stop young black men dispro-portionately being sectioned.
Neil O’Brien
We are currently responding to pre-legislative scrutiny, so we are on the case. We are not just waiting, of course, and we are already doing things on these points, including through the culturally appropriate advocacy pilots for those at risk of detention and on the patient and carer race equality framework to avoid and prevent detention in the first place.
The rapid review’s report will be published very shortly. NHS England has also established a three-year quality transformation programme that seeks to tackle the root causes of unsafe, poor-quality in-patient care, including sexual safety, in mental health, learning disability and autism settings.
Our draft mental health Bill, which has been mentioned a few times in this debate, is intended to modernise the Mental Health Act so that it is fit for the 21st century and works better for people with serious mental illness. The draft Bill has completed its pre-legislative scrutiny, and we will respond to the Joint Committee’s recommendations very shortly.
In a world of increasing rates of multiple morbidity and diseases of increasing complexity, it is crucial that we continue our progress towards more person-centred, holistic care that considers a patient’s physical and mental health needs together. That is why we announced in January that we will be producing a major conditions strategy to tackle the conditions that contribute most to morbidity and mortality across the population of England, including mental health. The call for evidence is now open, and I encourage everyone to make their views known before it closes.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Minister is talking about the mental health strategy now being part of the major conditions strategy. Is he aware that many mental health organisations see it as a retrograde step that, having conducted an extensive consultation and invited views, the strategy will now be put back even further?
Neil O’Brien
I assure the hon. Lady that all contributions were fed into the major conditions strategy process. The reason why we are making the mental health strategy part of the major conditions strategy, and why we are looking at co-morbidities, is because, as the hon. Member for Tooting mentioned, people with mental health conditions have a shorter lifespan and, in general, the cause is typically a physical co-morbidity. It is essential that we look at these things together if we are to make progress on tackling disparities.
We have committed to publishing a new national suicide prevention strategy later this year, and we are engaging widely across the sector to understand what further action we can take to reduce cases of suicide. The new strategy will reflect new evidence and the national priority for preventing suicide across England, including action to tackle known risk factors and targeted action for groups of concern. We are also providing an extra £10 million over the next two years for a suicide prevention voluntary, community and social enterprise grant fund. This competitive grant fund will help to support the sector to deliver activity that can help to sustain services to help meet increased demand for support and to embed preventive activity that can help to prevent suicide and stem the flow into crisis services.
Liz Twist
Of course it is good that we will have a refreshed national suicide prevention strategy, and of course £10 million is welcome, but it is not out there yet. In the meantime, the £57 million that was earmarked for local work on suicide prevention has run out. Will the Minister consider making urgent interim arrangements to ensure that this vital work can continue until the strategy is published?
Neil O’Brien
I am conscious that we need to help the sector to maintain and grow its levels of service.
I finish by paying tribute to all those who do so much to support people’s mental health: frontline NHS staff, those working in the voluntary community and social enterprises, and all those who are quietly supporting a family member or loved one.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
I think the whole House agrees that there is a mental health crisis, but the Minister’s presentation simply will not do. It was like a series of numbers read from a brief prepared by somebody who is remote from the reality of life in our country. It sounded complacent and like it was coming from on high, rather than from real experience.
I hope the House will not mind if I illustrate the general points I want to make by referring to my own area, as the experiences I am going to relate have a general significance for the country as a whole. First, let me agree with my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan), that the seed beds that are creating the great demand for mental health services lie in the social and economic conditions that have been created following 13 years of failed government. My constituency is 529th out of 533 English seats in social mobility—it is one of the most immobile socially. A child who is born today in the local hospital will die younger than those elsewhere in the country if they are in deprivation; there is no chance whatsoever of getting out of the crisis that so many families face, given the absence of social mobility across the country, but especially in areas such as mine. I am talking about deprivation where, in a constituency such as mine, access to a house, green space, healthy living and all the things one should expect to be able to achieve as a human being in one of the richest countries in the world are simply not available. That is the seed bed for the mental health crisis. I speak about my area, but this is a generic problem, as we all know. Even the Minister seemed to concede that in one of his responses, although the idea that the Government will somehow address the problems they have created after 13 years is preposterous.
The Minister talks a good talk on the Government’s intentions, but under his Government NHS staff wages have fallen, and nursing bursaries have been cut, as have mental health beds. In my area of Yorkshire we have lost a quarter of our mental health beds since 2010—since the Conservatives came into power and Labour was last in government. The loss of a bed may not sound much, but if we think about it, we see that dozens and perhaps hundreds of people would use that bed in a year. Every bed lost has a huge impact on a series of individuals, families and even communities. The same applies to the loss of nurses and other qualified staff; these things are in decline. So it is no good the Minister standing there and repeating stuff that has been provided to him by the civil service.
It is scandalous that in my area of West Yorkshire 10,000 people in a single year were released from acute hospital with a recommendation that they receive mental health treatment and all of them failed to get a mental health appointment. They were then removed from the list without any opportunity to receive even the basic courtesy of a single half-hour meeting. Beyond that, in the same year, 60,000 patients in Yorkshire had to be referred to a provider outside their area. Let us just think about this: we are talking about people with mental health problems being sent to an area that is unfamiliar to them, miles away from anywhere they know or feel comfortable and loved in, in order to receive basic treatment. It is not acceptable that that is happening in Yorkshire.
Suicide has been mentioned by a number of colleagues, from all parts of the House. In West Yorkshire, the figure for men committing suicide is over 20 per 100,000, whereas the figure for the country as a whole is 16 per 100,000. Let us just think about that. It is because of the deprivation and the problems we face in our area. Why should we put up with a postcode lottery that fails to address the mental health needs of young people, with the result that we have a quarter more suicides in West Yorkshire than in the rest of the country? That is shocking, but this is the kind of society that the Government have created and they have then cut the services that would provide the basic support that a civilised society should provide.
Let me refer to two profoundly shocking cases, which I am sure are reproduced everywhere in the country. The first involves a family who have an 18-year-old daughter. She has a mental health issue and it has led to her becoming immobilised physically. She was admitted to an acute hospital over the weekend—she is unable to move. The hospital insisted that she left yesterday, but there is no care package and no assistance for her. The doctor said, “My advice to you is to get some treatment, but you won’t get it on the NHS because you’ll wait for years. Your need is urgent. Go to a private practitioner.” That was what he recommended. We looked it up and found it will be £3,000 per month to get the treatment. This is treatment that should be provided by a civilised Government, but we do not have a civilised Government—it is shocking. This morning, that young woman of 18 was left on her own on a sofa—not even with a commode provided—with two glasses of water and a bloomin’ sandwich while the family went off to work to try to earn the money to pay. It is a disgrace that that happens in our society.
Finally, I come to the issue of people with mental health issues in care homes. These care homes are in some ways very good, but in other ways this is a racket. We have a care home in my area that the Care Quality Commission condemned in 2020. Nothing was done by the owners to improve the situation but the CQC did not go back, presumably because of covid, until November. It then said, “This home isn’t working, so you’ve got to move everybody out.” There are people there who are close to the end of life and others who have serious mental health issues. Closing that home is going to kill some people: let us be honest and blunt about it. It appears that its private owners are removing all the people in there with these mental health issues and putting them somewhere else, with no reference whatsoever and no care for people who have basically been commodities for them to use—but they are investing in the home. I have spoken to the CQC and asked: are those fit and proper persons to run such a home to care for people with mental health crises? My argument is that they are not and they have proved the point. They did not even go to appeal and the staff are being left on the scrapheap.
We have had a Government who, through austerity and the particular form of economic society they have created, have developed a major mental health crisis and then cut the required services. There is no prospect of their doing anything else to improve the situation. This is a serious problem. We must imagine ourselves in the situation of the family in the case I illustrated. This is a crisis that echoes throughout the land and it is not acceptable.
I finish on this point. We do need money putting into our mental health services, as everyone would agree. But why do the Government not start by saying that the staff—the carers, cleaners and all the clinical staff—get a proper rise? That would at least be a decent way to try to retain some of those people in house for now.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I ought to have said after the Minister had spoken that the original Question was as on the Order Paper, since when an amendment has been proposed as on the Order Paper, and the Question is that the original words stand part of the Question. I do not think that my putting that to the Chamber after the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) has spoken will have made any difference to his speech—I do hope not. I prefer to get procedure absolutely correct. It will be obvious that a great many people wish to speak this afternoon and we have limited time. Therefore, we must have an immediate time limit of five minutes, which is quite generous really. We begin with Dean Russell.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before I begin, I will rip up my unwritten 50-minute speech.
I have previously said in this Chamber that, if suicide were a virus, we would be on the hunt for a vaccine; if loneliness were a disease, we would be looking for a cure. I welcome the debate today. I know that it is politically charged, but that is the nature of this Chamber. Any opportunity that we have to talk about mental health and to tackle the stigma around mental health must be welcome.
Of course, we are talking today about the support that is available to people, but one area on which I wish to focus is mental health in the workplace, which is a passion. We spend most of our lives in the workplace; we spend time with colleagues. We are perhaps not always truthful to ourselves about how we feel. Engagement in the workplace is essential to prevent mental ill health. One challenge is to ensure that there is parity across physical and mental health. I have argued about that in this place before, and received support from all parts of the House. I welcome parity around things such as first aid; that is essential.
I have been very pleased with the engagement that I have had with Ministers, especially the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), and the Minister on the Front Bench today. I have also engaged with other Ministers in the Departments of Health and Social Care and for Work and Pensions. They have all been open to looking at how we can get better services and better support for colleagues in the workplace.
One challenge we face is stigma. I say gently and respectfully to Members in the Chamber today that, while of course these issues are politically charged and that we will all have a very strong view on this and on the need to make sure that services are in place, we are careful about the words that we use. When we talk about people not being able to get support, it might put off somebody from seeking and getting support. When we talk about some of the statistics, I ask Members to please be mindful about how they are used. We could deter a person in crisis from seeking help, because they might think that that help is not there, which could be dangerous.
I appreciate that we have a long way to go with mental health, but we have come quite a way. The support over the past few years and the change in stigma around mental health have been transformative, but we still have a way to go for the situation to be transformed. That means that, as politicians, chief executives of businesses and community leaders, we must ask ourselves whether we are doing enough. Are we talking about this enough? Are we looking at those solutions enough?
Dr Evans
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech about raising awareness. Yesterday, I hosted members from the NFU, who candidly said that, a few years ago, they would never have been speaking about these kinds of issues. We know that rural communities and farmers in particular suffer when it comes to asking for help. Is it not exactly those organisations coming forward and speaking about the problem that allows us to have this debate?
Dean Russell
I thank my hon. Friend for his important intervention. This morning, I was fortunate to host the Royal College of Psychiatrists. We had a roundtable discussion with different charities, organisations and leaders in this space about what we need to do and what that looks like. It looks like more funding—there is always an argument for that and rightly so; it means ensuring that we support people who have gone through crises, and that we look at that long-term support; but it is also about how we shift the conversation. For me, it must be about parity between physical and mental health. A few years ago, an amendment was tabled that would have introduced more parity of funding. As a Government, we need to look again at that amendment. Other important steps would include a mental health Bill. I appreciate that we need to move forward with that as soon as possible, and I echo the calls for such legislation, but we should not be damning everything that has been done so far, because huge strides have been made, especially in relation to extra funding.
When I was a councillor many years ago, I worked with local schools to look at what support was in place. I wanted to know whether the children as well as the teachers were aware of the support that was available. If we were to do the same survey today, we would find that the situation is far better than it was 10 or 15 years ago, but, as I have said, there is still a way to go.
I want to finish on a few brief points. When we consider the challenges around mental health, we must understand that the problem is not mental health alone. There is always some sort of comorbidity and there is always some impact on physical health. When we talk about parity, we are not just saying, “one person with mental ill health and one person with physical ill health must be seen equally”. That, of course, is important, but we must also be mindful of the fact that if somebody has a mental health condition it may affect their ability to work. On the flipside, a physical health condition may impact a person’s ability to get out of bed in the morning and their ability to do exercise. All those things are essential.
I hope that my words, from the Conservative Back Benches, will echo across the House: we want to get to a position where mental health is a priority across all of society. Both the Government and our communities play a part in that, and how we talk about this matters. I hope that we can talk civilly about the opportunities that are available. I urge colleagues to talk about what support is out there as much as, quite rightly, challenging Government and all of us to do more.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
I also wish to speak civilly. For me, this is fundamentally a debate about mum. My mum was diagnosed with schizophrenia before I started primary school, so I have been talking about mental ill health all my life. Growing up, we saw on a weekly basis the inadequacies in support, the rough treatment from mental health services and the results of poor medication. We cannot ignore the fact that there have been some improvements, but some of the worst of the ‘80s appears to be returning after 13 years of Tory Government. Governments have failed to improve the system, which is described as the Cinderella service, since before Cinderella was written, which apparently was as long ago as 1697—I discovered that only today.
This crisis is exposed in that lack of access to support, lack of outreach, lack of choice, lack of control over support being received even where it is received, lack of genuine community care and lack of priority being given to mental healthcare overall. It is also exposed through an overuse of detention. Detention is necessary when people cannot manage their own safety, but it is the most costly end of mental health treatment when all else has failed. It is more expensive than sending people to prison in this country, but it is over-relied on by a failing Government who are unable to see long-term needs and the means of saving funds as well as saving people.
As has been mentioned, this is also a crisis exposed by a rising inability to meet need, as demonstrated by the size of, and time spent on, waiting lists. The shadow Minister mentioned 400,000 children. I bumped into Karen, my constituent, on the bus this morning. She finally has an appointment for counselling after three years of waiting in Southwark. Therefore I speak today from personal experience and as an MP representing a community with a high prevalence of mental health conditions, including some of the highest levels of psychosis anywhere in the country. However, I am privileged to speak as MP of an area where there is greater support for some people.
Southwark’s Labour council has been at the forefront of instigating measures, including online support, the Quality Indicator for Rehabilitative Care, the Nest system for the under-25s and an equivalent wellbeing hub for the over-25s, which helped more than 2,000 people last year. I am talking here about fast access, professional support that does not require a GP referral or a long wait of time. This is vital support on the frontline delivered by a Labour council and an integrated care board, which are prioritising correctly.
We are also a community served by South London and Maudsley NHS Trust. SLAM staff do their best to meet needs, but, sadly, I see people and their families who are not best served. I know that SLAM wants to do more—I speak to the staff and I met the chief executive last week—but it is limited by a Government who lack ambition and intent. The Government are not just ignoring the crisis, but contributing to it through things such as benefit cuts, and allowing food bank dependency and debt in a way that contributes to mental ill health. This is also a Government who are cutting capacity. The Minister made some claims about figures at the Dispatch Box just now, but SLAM told me last week that, despite the level of the crisis, it is cutting £45 million this year. What that means in practice is horrible.
I wish to talk about the human impact. I met Stephen Crawford through the Walworth community council. I have known him since 2010. To be clear from the start, this was a man who was known to the local community and known to council care workers and local mental health services. He had severe anxiety. He was a sweet, gentle soul, but he was a target for those seeking to misuse him and his home with criminal intent. Understandably, he became very agitated about his home following break-in attempts and thefts. He was ultimately sectioned and detained for his own wellbeing, but then discharged to the unsafe home that he had told everyone he was unable to live in. He called the London Ambulance Service daily. He and others called the police. The police told me they had visited and intervened 56 times in recent months due to his behaviour. It was a crisis for him, for his neighbours in the street, including Norma and the Groombridges, who were trying to help him, for the London Ambulance Service, which is already overstretched and struggling, and for the police, who now say they may have to stop responding to mental health call-outs.
Stephen was discharged and did not get sufficient support. On Wednesday 19 April, just three days later, he climbed through the window frame on the top floor of a Browning Street building. He told everyone he would take his own life. The police attended, but he fell and was pronounced dead the following week.
That is what the mental health crisis means in practice—the loss of life, the human tragedy. Stephen deserved better, and if individuals like him, whole communities such as mine and multiple public services are not to face similar situations, with the avoidable costs and loss of human life, mental health reform must deliver better. I hope we see a serious case review and I look forward to that coming forward.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
I very much welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on a crucial issue. We have heard already about the importance of parity of esteem between physical and mental health, something I have been speaking about since my maiden speech. I am passionate that we achieve that parity.
I welcome the Government’s announcements over many months, the actions and contributions of Ministers and the £3 billion a year increase in funding. The £10 million in the Budget for suicide prevention was especially welcome, as was the £150 million for mental health facilities. I particularly welcome the £3 million for the mental health crisis centre at the Carleton Clinic in Carlisle.
As we have already heard across the House, prevention is important in mental health. We have heard a lot about young people, and we know that, sadly, suicide is the biggest killer of people under 35. I pay tribute again to 3 Dads Walking; I have been privileged and humbled to work with the three dads, Andy, Mike and Tim, who tragically lost their precious daughters Sophie, Beth and Emily to suicide. They have been able to channel their personal tragedy into trying to help people and raise awareness about suicide prevention. We are working hard to get age-appropriate suicide prevention into the school curriculum. The Prime Minister and the Education Secretary have met us and we are making significant progress on that.
I think this is an area that really unites us in humanity across the House. I very much respect the shadow Minister and her clinical expertise in this area, and it is crucial that we talk about prevention. I am grateful to the 41 hon. Members who signed my early-day motion on suicide prevention in the school curriculum and increasing mental health first aid provision.
My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell) has been a passionate champion for mental health first aid training. I have had mental health first aid training during my career in higher education. I have also had ASIST, or applied suicide intervention skills training, and I can tell hon. Members that it is very important. It does not make someone a consultant in mental health, but it helps them to have those discussions and be able to signpost people to the help they need.
I have put that training into practice with people I have worked with, and a great sense of relief has welled up in some of these people, who have said, “Oh my goodness, Neil, you understand.” I could then have discussions with them about seeking the support that they need. I passionately advocate that the Government work to increase mental health first aid training in educational settings and in the workplace. The more people we have on the frontline who can signpost people who need help, the better.
I also want to talk about rural mental health. Two or three weeks ago, our Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee published a report on rural mental health. I pay tribute to those who provide so much support to people out in rural communities, including charities such as the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution, You Are Not Alone, the Farming Community Network, Farmerados and, more broadly, the Samaritans, Vetlife, Mind, PAPYRUS and Every Life Matters. Rural mental health is a critical issue.
The EFRA Committee has made strong recommendations to the Government. I was pleased to attend the NFU reception yesterday, which had rural mental health at its heart. Our inquiry covered some of the issues around stigma that we have talked about in this debate. People are reluctant to put their hand up and say that they are struggling, including farmers and vets—as a vet, my profession is sadly over-represented in mental health issues and incidents of suicide. It is important that the stigma is broken down and mechanisms put in place so that people can seek out support.
In rural communities there are also acute stress events such as animal disease outbreaks. I witnessed the trauma from foot and mouth disease in 2001, and those ripples still affect rural communities today. The mental health trauma on people when avian influenza comes and their animals or birds are culled out is significant.
Our inquiry has made recommendations and, as we have heard from those on the Opposition Benches, we need cross-Government working on the problem, with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs working with the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Education and the Department for Transport to mitigate issues such rural isolation, connectivity, broadband and transport. It is so important.
This is an area that unites us in humanity across the House. I firmly believe that debates such as this can really help the Government to develop their policies and support people’s mental health.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
At 11.33 yesterday morning, this House finished Prayers and the first questions to the Health Secretary began. Disgracefully, two hours and five minutes later, the Government’s business was done and hon. Members were told that, if they had no further meetings, they could go home. This exhausted Government had literally nothing left to say or do.
It is therefore hugely welcome that my hon. Friends the Members for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) and for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) have stepped forward on behalf of the Government-in-waiting to ensure that today there is a debate on a matter of considerable importance. Every week in my constituency surgeries I meet parents exasperated that the treatment and support that they know their children need is not available. That can lead to the unchecked exacerbation of problems and children missing school—not the odd day, but months at a time. Whole years of their schooling are lost and family routines decimated as the entire family steps in to provide the support that an earlier intervention could have prevented.
Mental health is not a minority issue. Every year, one in four people will experience a common mental health problem. This Government are guilty of both underfunding mental health services and, through their actions, causing the number of people with mental health problems to rise. We all know that the Government have allowed our country’s economy to end up in a terrible mess and that money is short, but it is welcome and right that the Labour party and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North have been able to secure a commitment for additional funding from shadow Treasury colleagues—all of us who sit in Front Bench positions will know that is very difficult—to pursue the plans that are so desperately needed.
I want to talk about access to services locally. Stephen Jones in my constituency had a child with a mental health crisis that required in-patient treatment. The child was moved to Stoke-on-Trent, 70 miles away, because there are no child in-patient beds available in the whole of Derbyshire. The isolation that Stephen’s child experienced exacerbated their problems and made it harder for the family to support them. I stress to my Front-Bench colleagues that, while we realise that specialist staff will not be based in every single village and town, we need to give real consideration to providing those specialist services close enough that families can easily play their part in supporting patients, particularly children, in their treatment and recovery.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting focused on some of the causes of the mental health crisis. The Government are quick to talk about the increased amounts they are spending, but they are forced to spend more because there are more and more patients coming forward. If we had a huge expansion in the number of people with cancer, we would have to increase the number of cancer doctors, and yet we have far more people with mental health crises. The Government need to stop for a minute and think about the role they have played in causing that increase.
From the start in 2010, the Government’s pursuit of people on benefits, their targeting of the unemployed and the mentally ill, their approach to work capability assessments and the reduction in housing benefit, leading to record levels of poverty and homelessness, have all played a part in increasing the pressures on people and have in themselves added to the mental health crisis. No one is suggesting that those are the only causes—of course, very successful people can have mental health crises, too—but the Government should take that expansion in the numbers seriously.
The pressures on children in that period have exacerbated the problems. Between 2017 and 2022 alone, the number of children aged between seven and 16 with a probable mental health disorder rose from 12% to 18%. Shockingly, among those aged between 17 and 19, the figure more than doubled, from 10% to 25.7%.
Finally, let me turn to the Government’s disappointing, inadequate and defensive amendment to the motion. It says everything about their complacency and lack of ideas that they should try to convince the House that they have already acted to reduce A&E stays. Last year in Chesterfield alone, people suffering a mental health crisis spent 5,254 hours in A&E. It is clear from the debate that our nation’s mental health patients are being let down and the Government have neither the wit nor the will to fix it. I am pleased that Labour will prioritise this crucial area of health and I endorse the motion.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
As you and my hon. Friend the Minister are aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, there has been a tragic, historic issue of in-patient mental health deaths in Essex—it goes back to 2000—over a 20-year period. Roughly 2,000 people have lost their lives. An inquiry has been going on, but, as I said in the House in January, there has been deep concern about the lack of progress and the low level of engagement between Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust and the inquiry. I also pointed out that families who have lost loved ones want to know that lessons have been learned, they want accountability, and, most important, they want to know that patients are not suffering the same today.
At the time, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien), said that unless there was a
“quantum leap in the level of co-operation”—[Official Report, 31 January 2023; Vol. 727, c. 51WH.]
with the inquiry, it would move to a statutory basis. I know that the Secretary of State treats the matter seriously—he met Essex MPs recently and is close to making a decision—but it has now been four months since that debate, so may we please have a decision soon?
In the meantime, I recently met EPUT to find out what is happening with its service. I will tell some positive stories. In March, EPUT announced that it was going to launch a mental health urgent care unit in Basildon. We have all heard stories of people in mental health crisis going to A&E, waiting hours and hours, and then not getting the specialist service that they need, but that new specialist 24/7 centre saw 200 people in its first month. Instead of what happened historically in A&E—90% of people waiting a long time before being sent home without a care plan—90% of people see the experts within four hours and leave with a care plan. That is transformational. The unit is also piloting a 24-hour paramedic.
Demand in Essex is settling down. It rushed through the roof during covid but is now increasing in line with population growth. Complexity also rose during the pandemic. Prior to the pandemic, about 30% of those going into in-patient units needed to be detained. At the peak of the pandemic and post pandemic, that figure was 70%. It is now down to 60%. Our waiting time to see a psychologist, which rose to a year, is now down to 29 weeks. Vacancies for all positions have been filled, so the trust will be fully staffed from September and expects the waiting list to drop to zero.
Furthermore, EPUT is trying new technologies such as the new and innovative neuromodulation centre, which opened six months ago in Brentwood and is having great success. The trust is also encouraged by the Government’s announcements on electronic patient records. Enabling hospitals and mental health services to share patient records easily between them will make a huge difference. It is great news that the Government are behind that, but we need the funding for it.
Colleagues have mentioned eating disorders. Some may be aware that I suffered from anorexia when I was a teenager. It is still very difficult to talk about one’s own mental health. I encourage everyone in the Chamber to please be mindful of the language that they use; I have found some of the language used so far in the debate very upsetting. I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell) about being mindful of the tone that we use, because there will be people watching who are suffering with mental ill health, and we must not scare them away from getting treatment.
I am particularly concerned that what is being seen on social media today fuels eating disorders. The speed at which young girls in particular are shown eating-disorder content on social media by platforms such as TikTok is outrageous. I am glad that the Government are tackling that.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to mention social media, particularly in relation to teenage girls and eating disorders. I praise her for bringing her own experience to the Chamber. Another major contributor to the rise in mental ill health among young people in the last decade has been the isolation that social media can cause through bullying and so on.
Vicky Ford
My hon. Friend is completely right about online bullying. It is so important therefore that we get the Online Safety Bill through—it must not be delayed too much, although there are still issues to be looked at in the Lords.
I am very pleased that Ministers have announced that they will criminalise the intentional encouragement of serious self-harm, including eating disorders. I would like them to look again at the toggle on/toggle off issue that I mentioned last time we debated this, and—on another issue that is having an impact on children—to take seriously the need to prevent children from accessing online pornography, which is of an increasingly violent nature. Those matters are all related to the mental health of the nation.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
“We should be frank. We have not done enough to end the stigma of mental health. We have focused a lot on physical health and we haven’t as a country focused enough on mental health.”
Those are not my words, although I agree with them wholeheartedly. They were spoken in 2016 by the then Prime Minister, David Cameron. He went on to say that if we
“intervene much earlier with those suffering from poor mental health…we can stop problems escalating… By breaking the mental health taboo, by working with businesses and charities…I believe we can lead a revolution in mental health treatment in Britain.”
Yes, yes and yes. My question is: why, seven-and-a-half years and four Tory Prime Ministers later, are we still waiting? Mr Cameron has long departed these Benches. This is not the occasion to lament the mess that he left behind, but the experience in my constituency—and, I respectfully suggest, in the constituencies of many, if not all, hon. Members—is that the Government’s approach to mental health remains, all these years later, wholly inadequate.
We have heard a lot of statistics in the debate. The numbers matter, because they show the overwhelming scale of the problem that we are facing. Every one of those numbers is an individual, and around them is a network of family and friends whose lives are impacted day in, day out by the very real challenges of confronting mental illness. I have met many such individuals and families in my constituency. Just last week, I hosted a roundtable at which I heard heartbreaking stories of such daily struggles, many of which involve children and young people.
Amelia is now 16. She was diagnosed with autism at the age of seven. For the past nine years, her mum, Anna, and her family have been trying to get help and support, and they are on their knees with exhaustion. Amelia has attempted to take her own life several times, and has been so let down by the system that she says that she just does not trust it anymore. It feels to her that she only gets any kind of support when there is an absolute crisis. I believe that, if she had got the support that she needed a long time ago, she and her family would be in a much better place today.
Eli is 10. He has been diagnosed with Tourette’s syndrome. He has various tics affecting his eyes, face, neck, back, hands and feet. He is a fantastic young man, but he is regularly in pain, which affects his ability to cope with days at school and has a huge effect on his mental health. Until recently, he was told that he just had conjunctivitis. His mum, Natalie, told me that she has struggled to find the psychiatric support Eli needs, and every time she calls CAMHS she is passed from person to person. She has been told that there are no NICE guidelines on Tourette’s and the best they have been offered to date has been worry management.
Those are just two examples, but they reflect a much bigger problem across society and in all our communities. I have meetings regularly with teachers across Batley and Spen, but we spend far more time discussing the mental health needs of their pupils and their families than we do the many other challenges faced in education—another sector that is underfunded and under-resourced. We cannot keep pushing this issue back on schools. Teachers do an amazing job, but we cannot expect them to take on responsibility for what is a widespread societal health issue because of more than a decade of lack of focus and national leadership on mental health.
It is not just teachers. Because we do not have the mental health experts and provision that we need in the places where we need them, it falls to others in the community to pick up the pieces. In Batley and Spen, I am incredibly proud of the many voluntary organisations, sports clubs and charities that do a magnificent job week in and week out under huge pressure. I pay tribute to groups such as Andy’s Man Club, Game Changerz, Blue Tulips, Team Daniel and Luke’s Lads, but the voluntary sector is propping up the NHS and society as a whole. That is not sustainable and it is simply not right. We would not expect teachers, sports coaches, voluntary groups and others to deal with a burst appendix, a broken leg or an ear infection, so why are we asking them to deal with the mental health crisis? They are, of course, part of a wider, holistic solution, but they should not be the only solution. That is not the parity of esteem between mental health and physical health that David Cameron spoke of. While I am hugely optimistic about the excellent plans Labour has to address the mental health crisis, people such as Natalie, Eli, Anna and Amelia cannot wait any longer, which is why today’s debate is so important.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
As a now non-practising former consultant psychiatrist, I have a host of declarations I should make in terms of speaking in this debate. For the sake of brevity, I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my declarations as part of my work on the pre-legislative scrutiny Joint Committee, which list them in full.
This is an important debate and I shall focus on two angles. One is the delivery of mental health care and treatment and the other is the framework for that. I want to celebrate today the rebuild of the Abraham Cowley unit in my constituency. It gets rid of the awful dormitories that have plagued mental health care and treatment for some time. They are now gone, and we will have a brand new, rebuilt mental hospital. In fact, tomorrow, I am going to the topping out ceremony on the site to see the progress in delivering that. It will make a huge difference to the delivery of mental health care.
I used to work as an in-patient consultant psychiatrist. When people come into hospital for in-patient psychiatric treatment, it is often at the most difficult times of their lives. It is critically important that our mental health estate is fit for purpose and is a therapeutic environment. For too long, the mental health hospital estate has been the second cousin to acute physical health care and I am delighted that we are driving change forward in my patch. If people need in-patient care and treatment, they will get it in a new hospital that is fit for purpose. I just want to celebrate that and thank everyone who has been involved in getting it over the line, as well as all the people who work in that sector, including those who are looking after the patients who would have been in the old hospital, which is now a building site, and going through a stressful period of transition while the new hospital is set up.
My second point is about the draft Mental Health Bill. A few years ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), the former Prime Minister, suggested that we should review the legal framework we use when we treat people who are unable to consent or do not consent to treatment. Around every 20 years or so, we go through this process. We should be proud as a country that we have always been at the forefront of driving forward legislation and legal frameworks for dealing with people who cannot consent to treatment, the law of best interests and capacity. I was fortunate to be a panel member of the Simon Wessely review. I did that as part of my previous academic life, so Members can imagine my pride and delight in being part of the pre-legislative scrutiny Joint Committee on the draft Mental Health Bill.
I am slightly saddened by the debate today, because mental health—especially the frameworks we use to treat people who are severely unwell—needs to be above party politics. We are discussing the most invasive thing we do in medicine—detaining and treating people in hospital, sometimes for a substantial time. We need to think carefully about the right balance between choice, freedom and autonomy and making sure that people get the care that they need at the right time and under the right framework. I am glad that the Government have done pre-legislative scrutiny and we have worked on a cross-party basis to get this issue over the line. I hope that we will see the mental health Bill very soon.
My final point is about psychosis. The Government’s amendment mentions the treatment of psychosis, which I know is often missed out in these debates and when people talk about mental health. Psychosis is one of the most disabling mental disorders and far and away the most costly and impactful, because it can affect people when they are quite young—
Vicky Ford
It is incredibly helpful to have my hon. Friend’s detailed experience in this debate. Why does psychosis get missed out?
Dr Spencer
It is simply because of advocacy; the conditions debated tend to be mental health conditions for which people can advocate. We talk a lot about dementia, and the children of those suffering tend to advocate for them. For CAMHS, it is the parents who advocate. For common mental disorder, people are able to advocate for themselves, but psychosis can be—I do not want to make a broad generalisation—disabling and isolating, and can limit people’s ability to advocate for themselves. From my research, I know that psychosis can break down family relations and alienate people. I am nervous about broad generalisations, and for the most part people can get better and do very well, but in some cases psychosis can be very disabling and limit advocacy.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
I welcome this debate because, like every other Member, my inbox is often full of cries for help from people who are suffering mental ill health or from family and friends trying to help them. Looking through recent cases I have had in St Albans, I see a litany of problems with the system. Many constituents have told me that they have had to wait for more than a year for diagnosis. Some have needed an urgent medication review. One parent told me they feared for their and their child’s safety while the child was on a particular medication. They sought an urgent medication review, had an urgent referral from their GP, but the matter then sat with the psychiatrist for weeks and weeks. They were terrified during that time, waiting for a decision.
Other constituents have told me of their relief when they finally secured a mental health care package, only to find that it takes many weeks or months before the package can be put in place in practice. Those who have mental ill health and are also neurodiverse or have learning difficulties have told me about the hoops that they have to jump through. In some cases they have been told, “We can offer you mental health support, but it is not tailored or suitable for you because of your neurodiversity or your learning difficulties.” I have heard about the frustration that those individuals feel because those services are not tailored to them as a person.
Then we have the emergency A&E admissions. Again, just a couple of weeks ago, I had a parent email me in total desperation from a hospital corridor because one of their children had attempted suicide and had been rushed to A&E. They were not safe to be left unsupervised, but they were supervised by somebody who was inappropriate to supervise them. The family were desperate to get their child to a safe place, but that did not happen for days and days—it was only with my intervention that it happened. As I am sure many Members know, it is really pleasing to be able to make a difference in those cases, but it is worrying to think about all those families who have not got in contact—others out there who are struggling alone.
There are real problems with A&E pathways and with children’s mental health services. I hope that the Government will focus on those areas, but from speaking to my local mental health trust and hearing about the pressures that it is facing, is it really any wonder that we are having these issues? There were warnings at the start of the pandemic of an explosion of mental ill health, and I believe that the Government could have done a lot more to get ahead of that problem. For example, my local mental health trust has told me that there is not only an increased number of people looking for help but higher acuity. Therefore, instead of having a 2:1 staff-patient ratio, it often has to be 3:1. So even with the same staff headcount, there is less staff time for more people seeking help.
Those who work for the trust tell me of their frustration that the waiting lists are getting too long. They accept that medication reviews are often delayed because of staffing and resourcing issues, and there are huge pressures on the trust’s budget. Not only is there the demand; there is the cost of out-of-area placements, having to pay for private beds where none are available in the NHS, and paying for agency staff to cover vacancies that are not filled. Our mental health trust in Hertfordshire is the smallest bedded mental health trust in the country. We have huge ambition to open a new bed unit in the west part of the county, but we need the Government and the NHS to get behind that ambition.
So what do we need to see? We need to see prevention, and we need to see it early. Research from New Zealand, which is often cited here in the UK, indicates that three in four people with mental health problems show symptoms before the age of 25. That reinforces the need for prevention and the need to see it early, so I would like there to be a qualified practitioner in every single school. We need mental health community hubs in every community. We need to empower the charity sector—a sector that has barely been mentioned today. In St Albans, we have Time To Talk, Youth Talk and the OLLIE Foundation, which are all fantastic mental health charities that are working on tiny budgets. In Hertfordshire, we need support for mental health beds and, of course, we need to tackle the workforce problem. Until the Government publish their workforce plan, the lack of a workforce remains the biggest risk to service delivery in mental health in every single part of the country. I urge the Government to take action on those points.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
It is well reported that mental health difficulties have become both more prevalent and more talked about in recent years. Lockdown has certainly had a detrimental impact on the mental health of the nation, which is completely unsurprising. Isolation and loneliness are significant contributors to poor mental health. We have also had the economic consequences of inflation putting pressure on people’s personal finances, and the consequences of the NHS backlogs that have been referred to in this debate, but I particularly want to focus on children’s mental health.
As has already been mentioned by other hon. Members, we have had a rise in diagnosable mental health conditions among children since before lockdown. We have gone from about one in nine children having potentially diagnosable mental health conditions to one in six. I am sure we have all had cases in our constituencies—tragic stories of children who no longer leave home because they are too anxious, who are not able to go to school. We have seen a rise in the number of ghost children, many of whom are not turning up at school because of anxiety and mental health issues.
The Opposition have talked a lot about all the money that needs to be spent. The Government are spending money, boosting mental health spending by at least £2.3 billion by 2024. The motion calls for improved outcomes for people with mental health needs. We all want that, but prevention is better than cure, and it is simply not sufficient to call for ever more money to expand remedial capacity without addressing the root cause of the problem. It is a bit like having a leaky roof and calling for ever larger buckets to catch the drips: we need to fix the roof. Many will cite poverty, poor housing and not enough youth services as the causes. All are contributing factors, I have no doubt, but there are two less well understood, less talked about, and potentially more significant factors contributing to poor child mental health.
The first, which has been mentioned already, is the clear correlation between the rise of smartphones and social media and deteriorating mental health in young people. The extent of online harms cannot be overstated. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) mentioned pornography. Violent pornography is now routinely encountered by children on the internet, with 1.3 million visits a month by UK children to adult sites. There is also eating disorder and suicide content—again, as my right hon. Friend so articulately mentioned —and child sexual abuse material and exploitation. Anxiety issues are compounded by social media platforms. Children stay up all night waiting for likes on their social media profiles. There is clearly a relationship between more time spent on screens and less outdoor activity, which is another good indicator for poor mental health.
There seems to be a relationship between children spending more hours on social media and worse mental health. The Online Safety Bill, which is going through the other place at the moment, will deal with some of those issues, but I urge Ministers to encourage their colleagues in Government to accept some of the amendments that their lordships have tabled to strengthen the age verification provisions, to make it absolutely watertight that children cannot access some of the worst of those harms. However, we urgently need some proper research into whether it is safe for teens to have smartphones or to go on social media at all. Some have said that their smartphones are as addictive as cigarettes—that they are the opiate trade of the 21st century. I applaud the campaign group UsforThem and its “Safe Screens for Teens” campaign, which is calling for proper research into the health impact of smartphones on teens and whether, like tobacco and alcohol, it is necessary for there to be a legal age limit for accessing some of these platforms, or indeed having a smartphone at all.
A second, under-discussed contributing factor to poor child mental health is family breakdown. We are not talking about a small number of children affected: the UK has the highest rate of family breakdown in the OECD and in the western world. Some 44% of our children will not spend their childhood living with both of their biological parents. There is not enough recent data on this issue, but Office for National Statistics studies from 2010 suggest that back then, 3 million children did not live with their father and 1 million had no meaningful contact with their father. Given those figures, a mental health crisis among children and young people is absolutely no surprise.
Of course, family breakdown leads to other factors that contribute to poor mental health, such as poverty and low income. Some 80% of single-parent households are on universal credit, I think. That is no surprise at all, as there is only one adult in the house to fulfil all the roles and responsibilities of a parent. It puts pressure on housing costs, as one adult is supporting the household—of course there are going to be pressures on housing costs. Single parents are absolute heroes, and I take my hat off to them. Being a parent is an incredibly difficult job when there are two adults in the house. Single parents are heroes, but few would say that it is an ideal situation.
Family breakdown is far worse for the poor, which of course is closely linked to marriage rates. Married relationships are statistically less likely to break down than cohabiting ones, and marriage rates have remained very high in high-income groups, but have collapsed in low-income groups.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Lady has exceeded her time.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
Can I tell Members on the Government Benches a little bit about the mental health crisis in Newham? We have a rocketing population that is young, with no commitment from this Government that health funding will rise to match it. We have almost 41,000 children living in poverty. We have the highest proportion in the country of people living in damp, mouldy, overcrowded temporary accommodation. All of these people have no sense of security in their home at all: they do not know when their local ties will be shattered yet again by a forced move.
As we know, all of this impacts on mental health, and particularly on the mental health of children. I see that constantly in my casework, and local health leaders tell me exactly the same thing. It can hardly be a surprise to the Government that the number of young people being referred to mental health services is 30% up in Newham alone. Cases are increasingly more complex, more urgent and more in danger of spiralling into deep crisis.
Newham is the most diverse borough in the country, with the second highest rate of GP registrations by migrants. Our diversity has massive benefits, and I love it, but it requires clinicians to adapt their way of caring for people with different cultural backgrounds and languages. Despite all that, Newham’s mental health spend is the lowest in London. With all those challenges, our clinicians and our health leaders are obviously struggling to meet their targets. Average waits in Newham between referral, assessment and treatment were at 12 weeks in 2021. Some patients are waiting for as long as a year, and that is after they have had a referral, which as we know is terribly difficult to access.
Our local mental health unit, which deals with only the most severe needs, is at 98% occupancy—far in excess of the clinical standard. Quality of care and patient care and safety are suffering. There is a dire shortage of specialist mental health beds for our older adults. We have older people waiting for long periods on utterly inappropriate wards and in beds that are no doubt sorely needed for those waiting for other hospital treatments. Many patients with mental health crises are waiting in emergency departments for more than 12 hours, and local health leaders are worried that those numbers will increase. Our mental health services are struggling even to react to some of the most dire situations, let alone being able to offer proactive support that prevents mental illnesses getting worse.
We are creating even more problems—greater problems for the future, greater costs for the Government, greater costs for the NHS, more antisocial behaviour, more homelessness and rough sleeping, and massive wasted economic and social potential. People’s lives are being devastated by treatable ill health and completely avoidable misery. If we are not sitting in this place to avoid that, why are we here?
Labour’s plan to transform mental health treatment is desperately needed in Newham, along with thousands more mental health staff and professionals in every school and accessible mental health hubs in every community. We sorely need a preventive approach so that we can bring this crisis to an end, and we need it now. Can I use my last 30 seconds to look at the Minister and ask whether she will meet me and my health providers and health leaders in Newham to talk about the massive underfunding that our borough and my community face?
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
It is with some trepidation that I rise to speak in this debate, given the expertise and experience we have heard from all parts of the Chamber so far. I draw particular attention to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), who is no longer in his place but who shared his personal expertise as a clinician, and my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell), who kicked off the Back-Bench speeches from the Government Benches. He made a well-constructed speech that spoke to his expertise in campaigning for mental health so assiduously in this place. I pay tribute to everyone on both sides of the Chamber who has brought forward their own personal experience, their family experiences and their constituency experiences of mental health.
I will not reiterate everything that the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Watford said, but the parity of esteem we are working towards in this country is vital, as are the record investment of £2.3 billion that this Government have put into mental health and the extra doctors and nurses who will support people. Most of all, it is about reducing stigma in mental health. It is not unfortunate that we are doing so, but it does create more demand.
The shadow Minister said that the causes of poor mental health were complex, and they are, but she then went on to basically try to lay it all at the door of the Government. That is not remotely fair or accurate, because the statistics are complex too. We should welcome more demand from people who were previously undiagnosed, and we should recognise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) did a moment ago, that there have been societal changes, particularly with social media, which I referred to in my intervention.
At the very youngest ages, we are seeing an explosion in autism cases. I speak to the excellent Peter Pan Centre in my constituency, which deals with pre-school children with some of the most severe forms of autism, including those who are non-verbal. Next door is the excellent Merryfields special school, where a number of them end up going. Increasingly, those organisations are saying that the majority of their pupils are those with autism or autism spectrum disorder, and that simply was not the case 10 years ago. Again, that is probably because of better diagnosis—we do not fully understand the explosion in autism—but we must not assume that everything is to do with money being spent on things; it is to do with better understanding of mental health, more awareness and less stigma.
The pandemic affected the mental health of the entire nation, and I recognise that that has put a lot of pressure on young people in schools and universities, which I will talk briefly about as the Member who represents Keele University. On schools, I speak frequently with my heads and with parents who come to me trying to get statements for their kids. As we get a greater understanding of neurodiversity, there is obviously a real interaction between special educational needs and poor mental health. I was speaking to my county council yesterday, and the big issue is the availability of educational psychologists. My county council, Staffordshire, is doing a great job of training more of them itself, but that is a problem across the country, and we need to address it so that we can get children the help that they need with their education and their mental health earlier.
We have heard about the Department for Education funding and the training of senior mental health leads, with 400 already supporting more than 3 million children. There will be up to 500 next year, and more than 60% of state secondaries have a mental health lead. I want to see that get to 100% as soon as possible.
In my final couple of minutes, I will speak a little about universities, as the Member who represents Keele, which has 12,500 students. I am pleased that Keele has, as many universities do, a professional counselling and mental health team to support its students. More generally, the Higher Education Statistics Agency collects data from students on any disability that they have, including mental health conditions. In 2021-22, 416,000 UK students said they had a disability of some kind—that is 19% of UK students—and within that, 119,500 said they had a mental health condition, which is 5.5% of all UK students. That number is three and a half times higher than it was in 2014-15. Higher rates are found among women, undergraduates, full-time students and those in their second or later years. There is an issue here that we have to address, and I am pleased that the Government are doing so.
The covid pandemic fell heavily on students at university, particularly during the lockdowns and associated restrictions. At the height of the pandemic, many students, including those at Keele, struggled with the measures employed to prevent the spread of covid, particularly in university settings. Some had to socially isolate regularly and could not go home to see their parents. They were essentially locked in their room with nobody else there for a long time. Nightline, which co-ordinates student-run listening and information services, reported in November 2022 that it had recorded a 51% increase in calls in 2020-21. Numbers for the next year were 30% higher than that, which indicates that the pandemic has had a continuing effect on universities. I welcome that the Department for Education has asked the Office for Students to distribute £15 million for transition into university.
I am pleased with everything that the Minister said about what we are doing, and I end on the point that there is less stigma, which is a good thing, and if there are more people coming forward, that is a good thing too.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
As we have heard from colleagues from all parts of the Chamber, we are in a mental health crisis. Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly endemic. I pay tribute to the work of our offices, including my own team, who regularly deal with critical cases of mental ill health, including suicide calls, for which we have had to put on special training. That was happening before the pandemic too, and we need to recognise that.
Recent figures show that seven out of 10 secondary school children are expressing mental health distress. That should worry us. It has already been mentioned, but we know that there are risk factors and risk conditions that can contribute to the onset of a mental health problem. I will speak about the importance of early intervention a little later.
Oldham has the 37th highest prevalence of mental health disorders in the country. That puts it in the highest 20% in the UK; for reference, the Prime Minister’s constituency is in the lowest 6%. On the other side of the coin to this higher prevalence is our reduced funding. Research from the Children’s Commissioner found that child and adolescent mental health services in Oldham received over £100 less in spending per child from the Government than those on the Isle of Wight. Similarly, in 2019 The Guardian reported that London had nearly double the number of psychiatrists in the north of England. As I have mentioned, it is true that things have got worse since the pandemic, but that is not just a consequence of the pandemic.
I want to focus on what needs to happen, because we need a serious plan, and I am not from the Minister’s speech that the Government recognise that. The Opposition want to recruit thousands of new mental health professionals, which will go some way to addressing the lack of parity of esteem between mental and physical health services. That needs to be reflected in the Government’s NHS workforce plan. We have waited ages for the Government to produce that and it makes the partygate report look quite prompt. As the Government sit on their hands and fail to produce a plan, the crisis continues to get worse. That is why we will commit to the biggest expansion of the NHS workforce in history. We must also look at the metrics we use. For example, we would guarantee treatment within a month. That would make such a big difference to all those people stuck on what feel like endless waiting lists in Oldham, Saddleworth and across the country.
Finally, I am pleased to see our party committing to a paradigm shift from the medical to the social model of health, focusing on prevention in communities as well as treatment. The Leader of the Opposition has committed himself to that in Labour’s health mission, and we have also pledged that there will be a mental health hub in every community. We will go further than that: our commitment to addressing the rampant health inequalities across our country includes tackling the inequity in mental health. As we develop national policy from education to transport and finance, we will consider the impacts on health and health inequalities, including mental health. This is the difference a Labour Government will make. The next Labour Government have a plan that is both radical and credible, and for my constituency and for our country, it is long overdue.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will be well aware, because you have chaired many of the debates, that there has been a campaign in this House for over a year to stop SLAPPs—strategic lawsuits against public participation—which are used by very rich men to oppress free speech in this country. Just in the last hour or so, the High Court has ruled one of those SLAPPs cases out of order: the case of Mr Mohamed Amersi against the ex-Member of this House Charlotte Leslie has been struck down. In my view, that is a great victory for free speech. Because it is so important, I give notice that I will be raising the matter on the Adjournment.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. It of course needs no comment from the Chair, except to say that I think the whole House will agree with him that this is a good judgment and an important step forward. I do indeed recall chairing many debates on the matter, and I am sure the whole House will look forward to his raising it on the Adjournment. We will recommence the debate with Danny Kruger.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), who is a great champion of this cause. I am very proud to work with her on the all-party parliamentary group for prescribed drug dependence, which, after this debate, I am going to ask her to co-chair with me.
I want to call the House’s attention and that of Hansard to the speech made by the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle). The distressing and powerful story he told of a constituent of his will remain with me as a terrible example of the state of so many of our constituents and of mental health services that do not work properly.
I welcome this debate, and I am afraid to say that I do recognise many of the descriptions given by Members on both sides. I want to call attention to the excellent services provided in my constituency of Devizes by the Green Lane Hospital, a mental health hospital that has been there for many years. However, even there we have many cases of constituents feeling that they have been let down and of genuine difficulty in accessing the services that are needed in time. Despite the good efforts made from the top of the system to the bottom, we simply are not doing well enough, so I welcome the debate, and I recognise the general point being made.
Of course, I agree with the argument put forward by the Opposition that we need more mental health services. The question is what those services should be, how they are organised and, indeed, whether we should use services as the frame for this whole debate. I wonder whether the term “services and relationships” would be more appropriate, and Members have mentioned the primacy of relationships. The fact is that we do not fully understand all the neurological origins of mental health conditions, but we do know that they are exacerbated by social circumstances, and that while medical treatment can help, what really helps is good relationships.
I know this from my own experience. For many years, I ran a project working in prisons and with ex-offenders, and we saw so clearly that, while of course the official and the essential responsibility for crime and criminality rests with the individual, it is usually relationships and relational skills or the lack of them that lead somebody into crime and into prison, and it is relationships and relational capacity and skills that help people to get out of an offending lifestyle. We also know this very well from all the evidence in studies of addiction, which is very closely correlated to mental health.
What do we do? There is consensus that we need more services and better services, but my concern is that we will end up focusing the system’s efforts on quantifiable measures or quantifiable inputs—most of all, the prescription of pills and pharmaceutical treatments—so we will end up medicalising mental health, just as we medicalise so much physical health. I chair the APPG on prescribed drug dependence, as I have mentioned. The research that the APPG has supported, particularly by Dr James Davies of Oxford University, shows that a fifth of adults are on antidepressants, many of them because they cannot get off these pills, even though they are only supposed to be prescribed for a certain time. We spend £500 million a year on prescriptions for medication that people should not be on, according to the guidance for those pills.
I worry about the trend towards the medicalisation of mental health, and I particularly worry about the Government’s major conditions strategy, which I welcome. We cannot have a focus just on pharmaceuticals; we have to make it much wider. It should not just be about services, but about the relationships that support good mental health. I am pleased there is a strategy on mental health and there does need to be top-down action, but I would like it also to focus on undoing this over-medicalised model. We need more training for GPs to understand the social relationships at the heart of mental health, including how to support people who have acute conditions. We need more funding for social prescribing—that has been mentioned—which is a tremendous initiative. We need support for withdrawal services and a helpline for people who are addicted to prescribed drugs.
Overall, however, we need a bottom-up approach. I respect Labour’s plan for more access hubs for mental health, more school mental health workers and more staff, but really we need system reform. The hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) mentioned the community mental health approach, and I like that phrase, but I think it includes much more than just more hubs and more staff. We need a whole system reform that prioritises the civil society organisations, families and community groups that have such a powerful role to play in supporting people with mental health.
Lastly, I draw attention to the new developing model called outcomes partnerships, whereby the public sector pays for results—not for inputs and not even for outputs, but for actual demonstrable improvement, whether it is in healthcare or mental health. It brings together all the different providers from civil society, the public sector and, indeed, businesses—we have mentioned the importance of workplace training—so that we get all the different players involved in a person’s life, and so that the funding is more local and can be used on the preventive agenda, which is so important. Rather than just trying to pour more money into the top of the NHS and thinking that is going to work, we need to fund it from the bottom up.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I need to reduce the time limit to four minutes with immediate effect.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I want to highlight the crisis faced by families dealing with mental health issues, particularly those with children.
The crisis has been brought to my attention by many constituents over the time I have been an MP, but today I would like to raise the issue of my constituent Stephanie, whose son is autistic, non-verbal, and has complex developmental and communication delays. Stephanie knew that her son needed an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder diagnosis from an early age, but was told that he could not be diagnosed until he was seven. When her son did receive a diagnosis, Stephanie was told by the doctor that it was obvious how much he was struggling to cope with his life due to his ADHD. He is suffering from elevated levels of distress and unable to sleep through the night due to his inability to sit still for long.
Sadly, Stephanie was informed that there would be an 18 to 24-month wait for the community service MindMate to sign off the diagnosis and to be referred to child and adolescent mental health services, along with the medication plan. The CAMHS wait would mean a further 18 to 24 months to receive medication, so if they hit the longest waiting times at both services, her son would have been told that he needed medication at the age of seven and only receive his prescription at 11. Long wait times for diagnosis and medication mean that families across the country are turning for help to charities and support groups such as ZigZag, a Leeds autism support group based in my constituency that offers essential advice and support to thousands of families across Leeds. Stephanie has expressed her concerns and garnered support from other families with similar experiences.
The situation is at crisis point and requires immediate attention from the Government. We cannot ignore the struggles faced by families across the country dealing with the complexities of mental health issues. It is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that our most vulnerable citizens have access to prompt and proper care. Those issues are just the start. For instance, Leeds University reports that it has seen an about 60% increase in demand for mental health services and that the issues are a lot more complex than they were before covid. It says that many students are arriving at university with anxiety and mental health issues as the support they needed in their formative years was simply not available. Huge pressure is being built up, like a dam that is going to burst.
Adult ADHD services in Leeds currently have 3,300 people on their diagnostic waiting list—that does not include all the people who cannot be bothered to see their GP because of the length of the waiting list—and they are receiving more than 170 referrals a month, which far exceeds their capacity. The waiting list is currently upwards of three years, with an added wait for medication after having received a diagnosis. Similarly, the adult autism diagnostic service in Leeds currently receives more than 100 referrals a month, but it has the resources to complete only 40 assessments a month.
The current situation is completely unacceptable. We need the Government to create a more effective and efficient mental health care system that is responsive to the needs of communities. We cannot continue to let down families like Stephanie’s at every turn. It is crucial that we invest in the mental health sector and prioritise the wellbeing of all our young people.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
As an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on eating disorders—an issue that I will raise in my speech—I thank the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) for her bravery in sharing her experience.
The statistics on the crisis in the NHS, as raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) and others, speak for themselves. The 5.4 million hours that people with mental health problems are waiting in A&E is a scandal. We know that the longer patients wait for treatment, the worse and more dangerous their conditions can become. While I would love to make this speech about the importance of prevention, unfortunately we see a crisis in the NHS, so I will focus on the issues of acuity mentioned by the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper). Many of those who cannot access the mental health care that they need are children. A quarter of 17 to 19-year-olds have a probable mental illness. Nearly one in 10 seven to 16-year-olds and a third of 17 to 24-year-olds have tried to self-harm. My own NHS South Yorkshire integrated care board has a waiting list of 10,015 children.
If those figures were not horrific enough, I want to talk about one further horrifying effect: that of people with eating disorders—often children or young people—having to wait to be given a tier 4 bed in a specialist ward owing to the acuity of their condition and because of the lack of preventive care available. Last year, a parent wrote to tell me that they were struggling to secure a mental health bed for their child, who had been diagnosed with anorexia. They would have gone anywhere in the country to get their child seen given the care they received while they were waiting. They needed urgent in-patient mental healthcare, but no tier 4 beds were available, so they had to be admitted to a general ward instead.
When the parents first contacted me, their child was being restrained most days to be fed. They were worried that, without specialist support, repetitive restraint was only making things worse. I have since spoken to numerous eating disorder specialists, researchers and medical staff who have all told me about the rising number of children with eating disorders being restrained—often unnecessarily —by staff in general medical wards without training, recording or following guidance. I have heard more first-hand stories. I warn hon. Members that these are not nice experiences to relay, but they should be shouted from the rooftops because they are the human consequences of a system that is understaffed, under-resourced and under strain.
One person told me that, as a 17-year-old, they were restrained for feeding via a nasogastric tube three or four times a day by five people; that went on for about 10 months. Another person told me that they were restrained for daily NG feeds by five to six staff at a time for six months. Sometimes, they were held for an hour after the feed and would come out with bruises, despite their screams during the restraint. I have heard stories of 15-year-olds being restrained at 11 o’clock at night for NG feeding. To be clear, it is not just the people I have described who are suffering because they must wait for access to the care they need; it is also causing tension between psychiatric staff and medical staff on wards because these people are getting inappropriate care.
It is shameful that in such settings the use of restraint does not need to be recorded. Its use is heavily regulated in mental health settings for a reason. The use of restraint and restrictive practice is really consequential to the conditions that people go on to develop and their ability to recover. I am disappointed that in a letter and in response to me following a debate, the Minister refused to act and close the loophole. I ask her to think again about closing that loophole so that, no matter where a person is in the system, they have the same rights around restraint and that it gets recorded.
Mrs Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests because I am an independent lay manager. Everywhere we look in Britain at the moment, public services are crumbling. Chronic neglect by the Conservative Government means that people across the UK can no longer trust that they will be able to access mental health services when they need them.
As a lay manager in Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, I often see the impact that dwindling services and limited resources have on residents across our city. In our local ICB area in December, nearly 3,000 children and almost 50,000 adults were on the mental health waiting list. In my constituency, parents have told me that their children are waiting a number of years for urgent mental health support.
Birmingham and Erdington are not unique cases. Since 2010, the Conservative Government have cut one in four mental health beds across the country as waiting times for treatment have soared. Currently, 400,000 children are waiting for mental health treatment across the UK. They are being denied the help that they need.
I am a mum and a grandmother. Like all parents, I want the next generation to have better opportunities than I did. That is why Labour’s plan to recruit thousands more mental health staff, guarantee treatment within a month and provide access to a mental health professional in every school is so important. It is inconceivable that the Government have failed to put forward their own plan to recruit mental health staff or even reduce the shocking waiting times that our constituents are having to put up with.
I worked in the NHS for 25 years and, like many of my colleagues, I despair at how it has been treated by the Government. This year will mark 75 years of our incredible NHS, but, over the last 13 years, the Conservatives have done all they can to wreck it. People suffering with their mental health cannot afford to wait any longer for the support that they need. We need serious government. We need a Labour Government to tackle the crisis now.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
The Metropolitan police recently announced that it would stop attending mental health calls unless there was a risk to life. That has rightly generated much debate about the role of policing. However, it has not generated much debate so far on how, if we all believe in the right care, right person principles, we got into the position where the police are playing such a primary role, and where our mental health services are in that conversation. We know that the police are stretched. For all the Home Secretary’s talk of increased police numbers, the Government are only restoring the officers they have been cutting since 2010. Alongside those cuts, years of austerity have hammered other public services. West Yorkshire police tell me that mental health-related demand increased by 60% between 2012 and 2022. We have allowed policing to become the one-stop-shop that we ask to pick up the pieces when everything else falls apart. Mental health practitioners are also undeniably stretched, but mental health specialists are the right people to provide mental health support, especially when somebody is in crisis.
I am in no doubt that the police will have tried various other ways of encouraging their colleagues in mental health trusts to recognise the leadership role they are required to play in the response to a mental health issue. I know that because I also spend a great deal of time locally in Halifax trying to do the same, and secure specialist support for people who need serious and urgent help. When someone is in real distress with their mental health or approaching a crisis, too often West Yorkshire police, Calderdale Council, charities and other partners—even the hospital trust—work together with my team and I to do what we can. Yet I am afraid that too often it has proved incredibly difficult to bring qualified mental health specialists into the team to even be a part of the conversation. That results in the wrong care for people at their most vulnerable.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) said, that is a false economy, because it falls to all the other services and partners to try to provide a degree of care that they are not qualified to provide. We should not criminalise people who are unwell out of necessity. The police are right to take a step back. The question is what will it take for mental health trusts and professionals to be able to step forward?
As our motion sets out, patients suffering with mental health issues waited more than 5.4 million hours in accident and emergency last year and we have nearly 400,000 children currently waiting for treatment. If we are proactive about mental health, it will, as has been outlined, be cost-effective in the long term and we can prevent more people from being in a crisis situation. A Labour Government would recruit thousands of mental health staff to expand access to treatment, provide access to specialist mental health support in every school, establish open access mental health hubs for children and young people, and bring in the first ever long-term, whole-Government plan to improve outcomes for people with mental health needs.
I read the Government’s amendment to our motion. Does any MP who does their casework properly and is truly grounded in their constituency really recognise the picture it paints? The Government pat themselves on the back for hitting the target for interventions in psychosis. I checked what the target was. The standard is that 60% of people experiencing their first episode of psychosis will have access to a NICE-approved care package within two weeks of referral. We have all experienced supporting people in a psychotic episode. How long does it take to even get an assessment for that person to then hope that they are in the 60% of people who should get care within two weeks? It is not good enough. We need a Labour plan to deliver much more.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
There has been a narrative about whether it is increasing numbers of people becoming more aware of mental health that has led to more cases being reported, or whether there are actually more people suffering from mental health problems. I spoke to Michele Moran, the head on this issue for the Humber Teaching NHS Foundation Trust. She told me, indisputably, that we have more people suffering from mental health conditions. We only need look at the examples coming into each and every one of our surgeries to see how desperate the situation has become. Like other hon. Members, I would like to thank my staff for the work they do in supporting people with mental health problems. I will give two examples.
One example is a 13-year-old boy who has not been in school for two years. The school funded three counsellor sessions for him, but it cannot continue to give the boy the level of support he needs. This is a crucial point. Schools are very willing to help, but teachers are not mental health professionals. We need the professionals in the system, which is why Labour’s pledge to have professionals in schools matters so much. We all know how desperate the waiting list for CAMHS is and how difficult it is to get the level of support that is needed. We are left with families who are desperately struggling, having to rely on other family members and finding life incredibly difficult.
It is the same for another constituent with a 17-year-old daughter. She did not get the help she needed at the time she needed it. She could not access that primary care. What ended up happening was that she took an overdose, which she survived, but it was clear that her mental health was in such difficulties that she was sectioned. Her parents now find that only one of them is able to work, because the other parent has to be with their daughter at all times because of the difficulties she is facing. That is having a huge impact on their income and their standard of living.
In our area we have tried to do something different with the police. Right Care, Right Person is a joined-up approach from Humberside police, the clinical commissioning group—as it was at the time—local councils, mental health providers and hospitals to decide who is the right person to attend to someone in crisis, and then look at developments. It is not perfect, but it tries to address the difficulties we are having. Many of the cases the police have been sent to are still people actually struggling with their mental health, and the police, like teachers, are not the professionals always best placed to deal with someone in a mental health crisis. We are evaluating that as it goes along, but the demand for services is indisputable.
We need to take a step back a little and think about what is going on. We are talking about citizens advice bureaux providing counselling and support for people with mental health problems. The people that the citizens advice bureaux are supporting are not those who generally have mental health problems; they are people who do not have enough money to live, and their level of debt is causing them to have mental health problems. They are in a situation called negative budgeting, where, quite simply, the amount of money they have coming in is less than the amount of money going out. That is what is driving some mental health problems.
If we are to solve the mental health crisis, we must look at poverty, debt and the cost of living crisis. That is why I am so delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) said that a future Labour Government’s approach to mental health would be focused not just on health, but across the whole of Government. Until we have that joined-up approach, we will never really tackle the crisis our country faces.
Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)
West Yorkshire has among the highest rates of mental health issues in the country, with 28,630 children and 63,755 adults on waiting lists alone. The statistics show that Wakefield, specifically, is above average, with one in three people suffering from mental illness. As we all know, some of the primary causes are poverty, debt, poor housing and long-term physical health problems. Indeed, Eastmoor in my constituency has the highest prevalence of mental health illness, as well as those cause factors, too.
I know from my casework that the number of mental health cases coming into my office has been rising steadily over the past year. With mental health provision at breaking point, that is no surprise: more than 5.4 million hours waiting in A&E in 2021-22 for mental health patients; 1.6 million people stuck on long waiting lists for mental health treatment; and nearly 400,000 children currently waiting for treatment. On that last point about children, I am deeply concerned that Wakefield has the seventh-highest rate of under-18s under mental health care, with over 6,000 having contact with mental health services in the past year alone. Parents are left feeling helpless, watching their children’s mental health deteriorating as they linger on waiting lists for months, if not years, to access treatment.
Much of the problem is caused by the number of mental health nurses in the NHS now being lower than when Labour left office. It is unacceptable that people are left turning to A&E because of staff shortages in mental health. I have had cases where patients have been advised that they will have to wait a year for their treatment to start and such delays are becoming more common. Nearly 10,000 people in West Yorkshire had treatment closed without even receiving an appointment. After 13 years of the Tories running down our health services, we need a Labour Government that will guarantee mental health treatment within a month for all who need it, recruit thousands of new mental health staff and ensure that mental health specialists are in every school. The scrapping by the Conservatives of the 10-year mental health plan shows a total lack of long-term focus on those with mental health needs. That is why Labour would bring in the first ever long-term, whole-Government plan to improve outcomes for people with mental health needs.
With mental health services on their knees, I will be voting for Labour’s motion, and I hope the Government will finally give this area the attention it so sorely needs.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
The Conservative cost of living crisis is causing a mental health crisis. People living in poverty or, as we are increasingly seeing, under financial stress and in personal debt are more likely to develop mental illness, as so many hon. Friends have already said. Sadly, children from the poorest 20% of households are four times more likely to have serious mental health difficulties by age 11 than the wealthiest 20%, and after 13 years of Conservative Government our mental health services are at breaking point and patients are being failed. It is important that we talk about mental health in this place because it is a key issue. Like many other Members, I have constituents who are struggling to get the support they and their children need; that is their lived experience and it is right that we hold the Government to account on it.
For children, recent research shows the average CAMHS waiting list in February rocketed by two thirds, and the 400,000 children on mental health waiting lists are waiting an average of 21 weeks for a first appointment. Data from December 2022 shows that children in a mental health crisis spent 7,034 hours in A&E in my Bedfordshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust area. That is in the context of our Bedfordshire, Luton and Milton Keynes Integrated Care Board area having over 15,000 children on mental health waiting lists. This is distressing for both the children and their families.
Turning to adults, Royal College of Psychiatrists research from last October found that 43% of adults with mental illness said that long waiting times had worsened their mental health: 23% had to wait more than 12 weeks to start treatment and many end up turning to A&E departments. Indeed, data from December 2022 shows that adults in the Bedfordshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust area, including the Luton and Dunstable NHS Hospital, spent over 11,000 hours in A&E.
It is right that I mention the many volunteers who operate in the mental health sphere. It is the end of Volunteers’ Week 2023 so I want to make that shout out, particularly to the brilliant volunteers with the Luton, South Beds and Harpenden Samaritans, who are committed to supporting people struggling to cope or struggling with their mental health through the listening service the Samaritans offers 24 hours a day. If anyone listening to this debate needs support, they should call 116 123 for free from any phone 24 hours a day.
Finally, I want to state my support for Labour’s community-focused preventive plan for mental health so that people will be guaranteed to be seen within one month, there will be 8,500 new mental health staff, with open access mental health hubs in each community and a mental health professional in every school. We need this bold plan; we need it now, and we need a Labour Government to deliver it.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
There is no doubt that our mental health system is broken. Like many other Members, I receive hundreds of emails from my constituents about the dire state of mental health services, and there is a story for every age and every system failure, but today I want to focus on young people, particularly students.
It will come as no surprise that the Mental Health Foundation found that 40% of students are not coping well with their anxiety. In Oxfordshire, a survey by The Tab in 2022 found a staggering 82% of students at Oxford Brookes University had self-medicated with drugs or alcohol to cope with mental health issues. Where students know that they cannot rely on the NHS, an added burden is put on university staff. Tutors increasingly find themselves acting as therapists or counsellors for their overburdened, ill or anxious students.
Oxford University is working hard to improve services. It has come up with a joint mental health committee and a more common approach across the colleges and departments. It deserves praise for that, but the students I have spoken to have made it clear that
“University wellbeing services are not and cannot be a substitute for adequate mental health care”
and those gaps have dire consequences when severe mental health issues are left untreated. My constituents Jacquie and Mark faced every parent’s worst nightmare when their son Rory reached crisis point. Rory was suffering from anxiety and depression and found no support after a year of absence. He tragically committed suicide at university at just 22. His parents told me that
“we can’t bring Rory back, but we can help other young people preparing to go to uni.”
They are calling for a statutory duty of care for universities, which would force them to take proactive steps and intervene where a student is clearly at risk of harm. It is just common sense. It already exists between employers and employees. All we are asking is for the same duty of care to apply to students.
But, as we all know, the problems in young people’s mental health services are not restricted to those at university. So many people tell me the system is broken: parents, teachers, educational psychologists and clinical psychologists all identify the same failings. One parent wrote to me:
“I am breaking my heart listening to my son saying horrible things about himself, threatening to take his life, and struggling with his mental health in general. Next year we would have been on the waiting list for four years and nothing will probably happen.”
That story is not unique.
So it is left to voluntary organisations and local authorities to step in where this Government are clearly failing. Oxfordshire Mind and Restore do incredible work. Last year, I visited The Abingdon Bridge, a fantastic charity that provides specialist support for 13 to 25-year-olds. When I visited, it had 50 young people on its waiting list, who had to wait up to 24 weeks for an assessment and a further 10 weeks for counselling. Shockingly, that is still much shorter than CAMHS, where the waiting list is between two and four years.
We know how to fix this; it is about more funding. A senior healthcare professional in Oxfordshire told me that
“every pound spent on a child’s mental health saves thousands in the future.”
It is this Government who are failing our young people and their parents. The Government are dragging their feet. Young people and their parents deserve so much better than this.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
Suicide is a tragedy: it is a tragedy for the person, their loved ones and their community. As we have heard in the debate, suicide affects people of all ages. However, I am going to focus on one group: men. For men under 50, suicide is the biggest killer—not cancer, not other physical illnesses, but suicide. Mental health matters so much and it should be on a par with physical health. The NHS is there to look after and care for us all. That is the basic principle it was founded on. With suicide being such a big killer, it is only right that more effort and resources go into treating poor mental health.
Each suicide cracks an irreparable hole in the lives of loved ones. They often ask themselves, “Could I have done more? How did I not spot any signs?” or even, “Did I contribute towards it?” This would not be the case for physical illness; instead they would rely on professional healthcare. That is why the same resources need to be in place to treat poor mental health. Yet instead this Government have scrapped their 10-year mental health plan, displaying yet again that they are not interested in long-term planning. If it does not give them an instant headline, it seems the Government lose interest.
Of course, society has a role to play. For too long, men struggling or even displaying emotion are told to “man up,” “stop being a wimp,” or even, more cruelly, to “grow a pair.” Those words may seem harmless at the time, but in reality they are dangerous and cause tremendous harm. No one knows what is going on in somebody else’s head. That again reinforces why a national strategy is so important, not only to offer better and more accessible mental health care but to help to shift societal attitudes. We all have a role to play. How we conduct ourselves towards others is very important. In everyday life, we have an impact on every person we come into contact with. Pre-emptive mental health care is a must. That is why Labour’s plan to prioritise mental health care in an open access hub is so important.
Businesses and employers also have a role to play. They have a duty to their employees’ mental health. Modern workplaces should have accessible mental first aid in the way that they have physical first aid. For any strategy to combat suicide to be successful, it needs to be a priority of national Government. We need professional mental health support requirements for employers and a plan to change attitudes in society, not just a plan to swat the flies with. We need a plan that is resourced and put into practice.
We should make it easier for men to talk at work, in the pub and, most importantly, with professionals. Labour’s plan to recruit thousands of mental health staff would put us on the right path of caring for our men. The Government need to and should do more to solve that crisis, and our Labour Government will resolve it.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
In Greater Manchester, the number of children on waiting lists under the NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care Board is 23,510. The number of adults on waiting lists is 89,250, and the number of patients whose treatment was closed without receiving an appointment at all was 31,405. Those statistics represent people facing crisis, who desperately need help.
Like other Members of this House, I have heard many stories from constituents, including those waiting over a year for assessment and treatment for obsessive compulsive disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism or potential learning disabilities. Many have been forced, through desperation, to take out personal loans to pay for private assessments. Then, they have tried to privately fund their own treatment and medication. I have heard from constituents suffering with severe depression, waiting months for therapy and simply being told to ring 999 if it gets serious.
I have heard traumatic cases of teenagers battling serious mental health conditions who needed urgent help, with no bed available for them for hundreds of miles unless they chose to go on an adult ward, which I am sure for most children and young people would be an extremely frightening experience. I also hear the stories of our hard-working NHS mental health staff, who are overworked, overstretched, underpaid and at breaking point. So there is not a mere crisis in mental health; the service has effectively collapsed. Sadly, I fear for what is to come if the Government do not urgently act today.
Salford City Council estimated in 2021 that there would be between 36,537 and 40,902 additional diagnoses of anxiety and depression in Salford alone, equating to a point prevalence of between 14% and 15.8%. That was before the cost of living crisis hit. For those who reach crisis point, the outlook is equally frightening. An overstretched, underfunded ambulance service means that, often, the police are diverted to emergency mental health calls. That is why there was huge concern expressed recently in response to plans by the Metropolitan police to stop attending emergency mental health incidents.
More broadly, in addition to the chronic understaffing of mental health services, funding remains a huge issue. The Centre of Mental Health estimates that mental health conditions make up 28% of all referrals, but services receive only 13% of NHS funding. The Health Foundation found that the lack of funding meant that just four in 10 people seeking help would be able to receive it. The sad fact is that it makes no economic sense not to increase investment in the NHS and funding of NHS mental health services. As the Mental Health Foundation states:
“Poor mental health costs the UK a staggering £118 billion per year, but much of this is preventable.”
I welcome wholeheartedly the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) and I will support it. The Government must recognise this crisis, properly fund our NHS mental health services, and properly recruit those staff and pay them the wages that they deserve.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Minister spoke earlier about what the Government have done for the mental health service, but we have all known for far too long that people in mental health crisis are not getting the support that they need urgently. They need swift, accessible and effective support and treatment. I am glad that we in Labour have a clear and thought-through plan to address this issue and suicide prevention.
I want to start with some figures. The shadow mental health Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan), has already touched on the national figures. The figures from my local trust in the north-east are also worrying. Just in the 2021-22 financial year, adults in mental health crisis spent more than 1,134 hours in A&E at Gateshead Health NHS Foundation Trust, while children in crisis spent 180 hours there. The North East Ambulance Service received 3,622 emergency 999 calls from people in mental health crisis. NHS Digital figures for 2022 showed that, in the north-east and north Cumbria ICB alone, 31,345 children and 70,770 adults were on waiting lists, and 12,845 patients had treatments closed without even receiving an appointment. Those staggering figures have been reflected nationally.
This morning, I met representatives from the charity YoungMinds, who told me that urgent referrals to CAMHS are the highest on record. Let us make no mistake: many of our young people are in acute crisis. Research by the charity shows that 43% of the young people turned down by CAMHS had experienced suicidal thoughts, psychosis or self-harm. As a result of having to wait so long, 26% had tried to take their own life.
In an intervention, I raised the concerns of mental health charities about the subsuming of the mental health strategy into the major conditions strategy. There is real concern that the voices heard in the mental health consultation will be lost and that a five-year major conditions strategy is too short to bring about the changes needed and to emphasise the cross-governmental work envisaged in the original plan.
As the Mental Health Foundation highlighted,
“public mental health has traditionally received extremely minimal funding”,
of an average of about 2% of the public health budget of local authorities. That has been accompanied by a cut of 26% in public health grants in real terms. The Mental Health Foundation notes that we cannot simply “treat our way” out of mental health problems. We know that they are formed by hard socioeconomic factors that the Government need to address, and that the poorest regions, such as mine in the north-east, see the highest number of suicides. The Government need to work on that.
As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on suicide and self-harm prevention, I have the pleasure of talking with many local organisations that have been formed by people who have personal experience of suicide. To name just one, James’ Place is a charity that offers professional support to men in acute suicidal crisis. It currently has centres in London and Liverpool, but I am delighted to say it will be opening a centre in the north-east, where, sadly, we have the worst suicide figures in the UK. There is so much more I could say, but I wish to emphasise my wholehearted support.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
As we have heard today, England is in the midst of a mental health crisis, and that is certainly true in the north-east. I join my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) and for Darlington (Peter Gibson) in calling for an independent inquiry into the Tees, Esk and Wear Valley NHS Trust. The testimonies I have heard have shocked me. I know that I can speak only in broad terms, but they include serious cases of improper care and misdiagnosis, and of putting people on waiting lists despite their feeling suicidal.
The Care Quality Commission reports that we have seen raise concerns about risk assessments, communications and record keeping, and a lack of observation. There have also been concerns raised about the lack of beds for children, as well as poor staffing levels, high staff turnover and a lack of neurodiversity training. Horrifically, young people have even taken their lives while in the care of the trust. We owe it to them, and all those who have been harmed, to investigate what is going on within the trust. Will the Minister commit to an independent, judge-led inquiry into the trust? She can either respond to me now or I can wait for her response in her closing speech. One thing is clear: this cannot go on.
I want to highlight the crisis in children’s mental health. In my region, children spent over 1,000 hours in A&E because they were in a mental health crisis. There are over 30,000 children on waiting lists. Across England, one in six children aged five to 16 are likely to have a mental health issue. Children’s happiness and sense of wellbeing continues to decline. With mental health trusts raising the threshold of how ill under-18s must be, we have seen a quarter of a million children being denied help for their mental health. Poor mental health compounds. Left untreated, it can spiral out of control, as we have heard many times today. No one should be in a mental health crisis, let alone children. The Government must invest in children’s mental health today—no more delays and no more referrals. The Minister must allow children the happiness that they deserve.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I call the shadow Minister, I must say that I am very disappointed that seven Opposition Members who spoke in the debate are not back in the Chamber for the wind-ups, as well as about three Government Members. I must emphasise again that it is really important for people to get back to hear what the shadow Minister has to say, as well as the Minister. I hope that message will be conveyed back to those Members who are not here. I will say it again in the hope that they are back by the time the shadow Minister has finished his speech.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to close the debate on behalf of the shadow health and social care team.
We have had a thorough debate and we have heard some heartbreaking, harrowing and concerning things during its course. The amendment that the Minister has put down in response to the motion is reminiscent of “Alice Through the Looking Glass”, because it does not bear any relationship to people’s lived experiences of the mental health system in England or the contributions made by Members from both sides of the House to the debate.
I pay tribute to all who have spoken today. There have been some incredible speeches. We heard from the hon. Members for Watford (Dean Russell) and for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson), from the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), and from the hon. Members for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), for Penistone and Stockbridge (Miriam Candidates), for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell), for Devizes (Danny Kruger), for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), and for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran).
We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), who made an extremely powerful contribution, and my hon. Friends the Members for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater), for West Ham (Ms Brown)—I ask the Minister not to forget her request for a meeting; she is certainly someone to whom it is difficult to say no—for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake), for Birmingham, Erdington (Mrs Hamilton), for Halifax (Holly Lynch), for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), for Wakefield (Simon Lightwood), for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer), for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) and for Blaydon (Liz Twist). Finally, we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy); I remind the Minister that she would like a response to her request for an inquiry into issues in her local area.
We are facing a mental health emergency in this country—
Vicky Ford
The hon. Gentleman has said that the Government’s amendment bears no relation to the reality of what people are seeing. In my speech I mentioned the creation of a brand-new facility for patients in mid-Essex, which means that people in crisis are not spending many hours in A&E but are going to a bespoke 24/7 centre. That is the sort of provision that I want to support, and it is mentioned in the Government amendment but not in the Opposition motion.
Andrew Gwynne
Of course we need facilities in every part of England, but the fact is that after 13 years, too many parts of England are falling behind. We know that the mental health crisis in this country has become worse on the watch of the right hon. Lady’s Government, and she should have a little contrition about the state of mental health services in England.
Andrew Gwynne
I will not give way. We have heard enough from the right hon. Lady, supporting her “Through the Looking-Glass” amendment which bears no relation to the reality.
As we have heard today, people who require mental health support, no matter where they live—except in the right hon. Lady’s part of England—will be confronted by a system that is buckling under the pressure of 13 years of Tory mismanagement, neglect and incompetence. The right hon. Lady shakes her head, but the figures speak for themselves. Last year, patients suffering with mental health issues waited more than 5.4 million hours in accident and emergency departments. There are 400,000 children currently waiting for mental health treatment, and 1.2 million people are waiting for community mental health care, with some patients being forced to travel more than 300 miles because there are no beds in their local area. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth spoke powerfully about that. The Resolution Foundation has found that, of the 185,000 young people who are unable to work, nearly two thirds cite mental ill health as the reason. Suicide is now the leading cause of death in adults under 34, with about 18 people losing their lives every single day. As the cost of living crisis has worsened, we have also seen a knock-on effect on addiction and rehabilitation. Drug-related deaths are at a record high, and last year there were 9,641 deaths in the UK from alcohol misuse, a 27% increase on the year before.
Make no mistake: the emergency in mental health has become a public health crisis, and we need to see action. Our motion calls on the Government to adopt Labour’s plan to recruit 8,500 mental health staff to expand access to treatment, to provide specialist mental health support in every school, and to establish open-access mental health hubs for children and young people. That would be paid for by the closing of tax loopholes, because politics is about priorities, and Labour’s priority is to ensure that those who need mental health support have access to it in all parts of the country. Our priority is to build a Britain where patients start receiving appropriate treatment within a month of referral. I hope that those on the Government Benches will demonstrate that they share these priorities by voting for Labour’s motion today.
Staffing is just one part of the equation. Like any public health issue, addressing mental health requires a holistic approach that recognises its complex nature. That is why Labour has committed to a whole-Government plan to improve outcomes for people with mental health needs and to address the social determinants that drive mental ill health for many people. Our mental health can be influenced by a multitude of different things. Secure jobs, fair pay and good housing are all building blocks for a healthy life, physically and mentally, and unless we improve people’s lives in the round, positive change will remain out of reach.
It is for this reason that the next Labour Government will focus as much on prevention as we do on treatment. We will pioneer a transformative cross-departmental agenda with a mission delivery board at the heart of the Government ensuring that all Departments work to improve the wider determinants of health. We will boost capacity in mental and public health teams so that people can get the support they need before presenting at A&E or turning to substance abuse. We will also encourage the integrated care systems to identify opportunities to join up services within the community. Our aim will be for more patients to have one point of contact for appointments with a range of professionals and services. This neighbourhood team will include the family doctor, carers, health visitors, social prescribers and mental health specialists.
Our vision is to turn the national health service into a neighbourhood health service with the patient right at the heart of it. The benefits of this kind of work will travel far beyond improving the lives of individuals suffering from mental ill health. For instance, in my own region of the north-west of England there were over 140,000 calls to 999 from people in a mental health crisis last year, and in my own constituency local people spent over 6,500 hours waiting in A&E for mental health treatment. If we were to help people before they reached these crisis points, we would drastically reduce pressure on the wider health system and thereby improve patient outcomes right across the board.
The same is true of wider economic productivity. As we have heard in the debate, the Mental Health Foundation and the London School of Economics have estimated that poor mental health costs the British economy £117 billion a year. That is a phenomenal amount of money and a huge loss to our country’s economic power. Improving mental health outcomes is therefore not just a moral imperative—although it is certainly that—but a practical one, and one that is essential if we want the United Kingdom to prosper, as I hope and believe we all do. That is what we come to this House for. We want to leave our country in a better shape for our children than it has been for ourselves.
That brings me again to the motion. All Members of the House have the opportunity today to support a fully funded plan to improve mental health treatment. Those on the Government Benches can choose to put party politics first, but that will not change the fact that this Government have failed people on mental health. No matter what amendments they put before us, that does not change people’s real, lived experiences or the experiences of Members on both sides of the House who deal with the impact of mental ill health in their constituency casework. The system is crumbling and more of the same will just not cut it, so I am enormously proud to be supporting Labour’s motion today and I would strongly urge Members on both sides of the House to back it. It is time to give those suffering from mental ill health the treatment and support they deserve, and I commend our motion to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I reiterate for those who were not here that it is incredibly important that people get back in good time to hear the Opposition wind-up as well as the Government wind-up—that includes Ministers. I would expect anybody who was not here at the beginning of the Opposition wind-up, some of whom are still not here, to write to Mr Speaker to apologise. I take it that people will do that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
What a shame it is that the Opposition have chosen to play politics with mental health, as we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) and my hon. Friends the Members for Watford (Dean Russell), for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) and for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson), because these are important issues. All countries are facing challenges with rising cases of mental ill health and capacity issues, but we have made progress in the last 10 years. It was in 2016 that David Cameron first talked about changing the stigma on mental health and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford put it so well, we want more people to come forward. The problem in the past was that people did not come forward, instead waiting until they became so acutely unwell that it was more difficult to support them.
Dr Hudson
A recurrent theme in today’s debate, on both sides of the House, has been the importance of prevention and breaking down stigma. Does my hon. Friend agree that the message should go out from Members on both sides of the House that it is okay not to be okay, that people should reach out and that more people in all walks of life should be first aid-trained to help when people do reach out?
Maria Caulfield
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) said, we had an event with the NFU yesterday, and that is exactly the point we wanted to make. It was my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) who set about changing the status of mental health, putting it on a level playing field with physical health, not just in the services we provide but in funding and staffing, with parity of esteem across the board.
Let us look at some of the progress that has been made over the last 10 years. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan), said in her opening remarks that she is bored of this figure, but it is true that £2.3 billion of additional funding is being put into frontline mental health services, supporting another 2 million people to access NHS-funded mental health services.
We are already doing much of what shadow Ministers have set out this afternoon. We are already recruiting 27,000 additional staff into mental health services, with 20,000 of them already in place. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford highlighted the difference that is making in her local area. We are removing dormitory accommodation across the country through a £400 million capital programme, and 29 schemes have already gone through—that is 500 beds that are no longer in dormitory-style accommodation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge highlighted the difference that funding is making in his constituency. We are moving to a system of community crisis support and early intervention so that people do not get to a point where they need to be admitted. Our £190 million of capital funding is being used to build community crisis facilities up and down the country. We are investing in mental health ambulances: 20 are already in place, 40 will be in place by the end of the year, and 47 will be in place next year. The shadow Minister laughs about this, but when somebody is going into crisis, it is more appropriate that a mental health specialist team visits them in a mental health ambulance than an ordinary paramedic, who will inevitably take them to A&E.
Suicide is the leading cause of death in new mums, which is completely unacceptable. That is why we are investing in perinatal mental health services in every part of England—these services saw 31,500 women last year.
As we remove the stigma, it is important that we have the services to deal with the rising number of people who come forward and ask for help, as we want them to do. We have introduced three targets, the first of which is on access to talking therapies, where 75% of people should begin treatment within six weeks. Currently, 90% of people are doing so and we are meeting that target. When children and young people are referred for eating disorders, the target is that 95% should be seen within one week. We are currently at 77%, whereas last year’s figure was 61%, so despite the rising numbers we are seeing more children with eating disorders—
Vicky Ford
I was incredibly upset by the shadow Minister’s suggestion that I do not care about mental health. As someone who has suffered with mental ill health in the past and spoken in the Chamber about how hard it is to speak about that, I found that very upsetting. Mental health suffered greatly during the pandemic, especially that of children and young people—I was the children’s Minister at the time. We all know that we need to do better, which is why it is important that we learn about what is working now and about new innovations. On eating disorders, I particularly thank the Minister for getting the waiting list time down.
Maria Caulfield
I thank my right hon. Friend for that. It is important that we take the politics out of this argument, because no one in this Chamber, on either side, does not care about mental health.
The psychosis target we have introduced is that 60% of people should start treatment within six weeks, and we are currently at 72%. We are overperforming on many of those targets. NHS England has five new targets that we hope to introduce soon—
Maria Caulfield
Unfortunately, given the time I have left, I will not give way any more.
As for the challenges we face, we are seeing rising numbers, but we are seeing that in all parts of the country. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), talked about not judging Labour on its track record on health in Wales, where Labour has produced smaller funding increases for its health service; its 7.8% increase compares with the 8.6% increase that we have given in England. Mind Cymru has said that hundreds of people across Wales are currently waiting more than a year to access psychological therapies. The target is supposed to be that 80% of people in Wales access therapies within six months, but that target has never been met. It gets worse, because since 2020 the number of people waiting longer than a year in Wales for mental health support has increased by 17%. Labour talks a good game, but its actions speak louder than its words. I urge shadow Ministers to acknowledge that these problems exist in all countries and that we all face these pressures. A grown-up conversation would be about sharing best practice and working together to make that happen.
Many Members talked about preventive and early intervention therapies. My hon. Friends the Members for Bosworth and for Devizes (Danny Kruger) talked about that and about moving away from the medicalisation of mental health. That is why we are investing in talking therapies. For anyone who has not been on the Every Mind Matters website, let me say that it provides practical support for people who are anxious, distressed or not sleeping. It also provides for self-referrals to talking therapies. Since we introduced that, more than 1.2 million patients have accessed NHS talking therapies in the last year, helping them to overcome anxiety and depression. More than 90% of those people have had their treatment completed within six weeks.
Many Members talked about schools, and we are introducing mental health support teams in schools. We have almost 400 now, covering more than 3 million children, and about 35% of schools and colleges. More than 10,000 schools and colleges have trained a senior mental health specialist, including more than six in 10 state schools. That work is happening already and it is making a difference right now. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) highlighted how we need to move that into universities, and I would be happy to talk to him about how we can do that further.
On in-patient services and the quality of care, we have recently conducted a rapid review of mental health in-patient settings. The Secretary of State will announce the results of that soon. We have also introduced a three-year quality transformation programme, which seeks to tackle the root cause of unsafe, poor-quality in-patient care, particularly for those with learning disabilities and autism.
On suicide prevention, our forthcoming strategy will target high-risk groups and locations of concern. We will also provide £10 million of funding for charities that do so much good work in this space. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border that I would be very happy to meet the 3 Dads Walking, Andy, Mike and Tim. I know that they have met the Prime Minister.
Maria Caulfield
I am just answering a question on suicide. I would be very happy to meet the 3 Dads Walking to learn the lessons for our suicide prevention strategy.
Maria Caulfield
I will not give way. I only have a few minutes left.
It is disappointing that Labour Members cannot understand the progress that has been made and are determined to make political points, damaging the work that our NHS staff up and down the country do day in, day out, backed by record levels of investment that have never been seen before in mental health services.
It is true that we have tabled an amendment this afternoon, in which the Prime Minister acknowledges how much work we have done in this space. With a rising number of people accessing mental health support, which is a good thing and not something to be criticised, we are investing in those services and in 27,000 extra staff.
Maria Caulfield
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will continue if I may.
Despite the disingenuous motion proposed by the Labour party, it is my privilege to hear about the valuable contributions being made up and down the country. It is so easy to talk down our services, but if Labour Members are serious about improving mental health services, perhaps they should talk to their Welsh counterparts. Action speaks louder than words. Mental health services in England are performing better than those in Wales. We all know that this is not really about improving mental health services; it is about using mental health as a political football, but we on the Government Benches will not play that game.
Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, on Monday, the Home Secretary gave inaccurate information to Parliament when she said that
“the asylum initial decision backlog is down by 17,000”.—[Official Report, 5 June 2023; Vol. 733, c. 557.]
The asylum initial decision backlog is clearly defined by the Home Office. It is the total backlog of initial decisions before and after June of last year, and Home Office figures show that it has gone up from 132,000 to 137,000 for main applicants since the beginning of December. It has gone up from 160,000 to 172,000 for all applicants in the first quarter of this year. On either measure, that backlog is up, and not down.
I raised this matter as a point of order on Monday, and the Home Secretary refused to correct the record then. I have written to the Home Secretary this morning, but have still heard nothing back. The ministerial code requires
“that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity.”
I know that the Home Secretary has a history of breaching the ministerial code but, Madam Deputy Speaker, would you agree that facts matter and that it is not acceptable for Ministers to fail to correct the record if they have given inaccurate information to Parliament? Have you heard from the Home Secretary about her intention to come and correct the record?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the right hon. Lady for her point of order. As has been said before, and I think this was said when she raised the point of order yesterday, it is obviously not for the Chair to adjudicate in cases of differing interpretations of statistics. That said, if a Minister has made a mistake in the House, I would of course expect them to correct it. The right hon. Lady has put her perspective on the record. Ministers will have heard it, and I am sure the Home Secretary will reflect on whether a correction is required in this case. I see that the Whip, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), is writing this down and it will be fed back, and I am sure Ministers will do the same. I thank the right hon. Lady, and I think we will leave it at that.
Teesworks: Accountability and Scrutiny
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:47 - The House divided: - Ayes: 166 / Noes: 272 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the shadow Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities provide all papers, advice and correspondence involving Ministers, senior officials and special advisers, including submissions and electronic communications, relating to the decision by the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and the Prime Minister to commission a review into the Tees Valley Combined Authority’s oversight of the South Tees Development Corporation and the Teesworks joint venture, including papers relating to the decision that this review should not be led by the National Audit Office.
Let me start by saying that I am really disappointed that it has come to this. Devolution was meant to empower people in every part of Britain to “take charge of their own destiny”. This Government were elected on exactly that promise and exactly those words, and here we are standing in the House of Commons trying to persuade the Government to come clean about why they have chosen to block an independent inquiry that would help us get to the bottom of the use of public assets and funds on Teesside in the wake of some of the most serious allegations I have ever seen in my time in Parliament.
For nine years, since the Government accepted Greater Manchester’s case for greater devolution, I and many others on all sides of this House have been pressing the Government to respect the right of people in every part of Britain to know how their assets and money are being used and to close the gap that currently exists by inviting people back into the conversation, and by building a system of local and national scrutiny and accountability that is fit for purpose, backed by a Government who are willing to open the books.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
I think the key point in this debate was aired in what the hon. Lady said a moment ago, when she said that some of the most serious allegations she has ever heard aired in this House have been made. Will she stand with those allegations? At the moment, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) has alleged “industrial-scale corruption”. The hon. Lady has been very careful in all her public utterances, as indeed has he outside this Chamber, to avoid repeating that claim. Does she agree with him, or does she not?
Lisa Nandy
The problem, as the right hon. Member well knows, is that Members of this House and, more importantly, people on Teesside simply do not know the answer to that question. Serious allegations have been raised not just by Members on the Opposition Benches, but by respected national journalists who have conducted meticulous investigations, and the point of holding an independent inquiry is that these serious allegations and the questions that have been raised need to be answered.
At every juncture and at every level of Government, when it comes to fair and reasonable questions about the South Tees development corporation, accountability, scrutiny and democratic control have broken down. It is only because of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) and some tenacious, meticulous journalists, such as Jennifer Williams of the Financial Times, that we even know the bare facts of what has unfolded. People on Teesside should not have to rely on a national newspaper to discover what has been done with their assets, their community and their civic inheritance.
Lisa Nandy
If the hon. Member wants to say otherwise, she is very welcome to do so now.
Sara Britcliffe
Just for clarification, is the hon. Lady confirming that she will not repeat outside this Chamber the allegations made by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald)?
Lisa Nandy
Honestly. It is about time that hon. Members stopped chirping and started paying attention.
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has accepted that an investigation is needed to give investors confidence. I saw him walking through the Chamber a moment ago, Madam Deputy Speaker—he could not get away quick enough. This is why we want to see an investigation launched without delay: to restore investor confidence and the confidence of the public in both the project and the devolution model itself.
The Secretary of State’s decision to block the National Audit Office from investigating these allegations is nothing short of bizarre. It is an investigation that is backed by the Tees Valley Mayor, by the official Opposition and by three Select Committee Chairs. The National Audit Office has the experience, capacity and independence to carry out an investigation—it has said itself it was able to do so and that the Secretary of State has the power to order that investigation—so it beggars belief that the Secretary of State has blocked that inquiry and now set up a review where the terms of reference and the members have been hand-picked by him. Then to come to the House on Monday and be unwilling—or perhaps unable—to answer basic questions about why he chose to do that is completely unacceptable. Saying that consultations were had and that the Government do not wish to set a precedent will not do. For decades, people on Teesside have made a major contribution to the UK through the steel industry. The Teesworks belongs to them and they have the right to know what is being done with it in their name.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
The shadow Secretary of State is making an excellent speech to open the debate. Does she agree with me, as a member of the all-party parliamentary group on devolution, that we all want our regions to prosper and grow, but that things have to be done properly and be seen to be done properly?
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and has been a huge champion of this for communities across the country. Most importantly, our regions will not prosper and will not grow unless we can have confidence that decisions are being taken in the right way and in the public interest, and the people of that region need to know that they will benefit from those decisions. That is the point of devolution.
Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Would the hon. Lady not agree that Teesside did not prosper or grow for decades after the demise of heavy industry and that it was only when Ben Houchen came along and started delivering for the people that people started realising that the Conservatives on Teesside were delivering, when Labour had failed for generations?
Lisa Nandy
I will take absolutely no lessons from a representative of a political party that stood aside and watched as the Tees works collapsed in 2015.
Labour is therefore asking the Government to provide all papers, advice and correspondence, including Ministers, senior officials and special advisers, relating to the decision by the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister to commission a review into the Tees Valley Combined Authority’s oversight of the South Tees Development Corporation and the Teesworks joint venture, including papers relating to the decision that the review should not be led by the National Audit Office.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The hon. Member is probably aware that, in addition to the scandal that she is outlining in her excellent speech, Woking Council has today issued a section 114 notice, following its having run up £1.9 billion of debts under a Conservative-led administration, when it has core spending power of just £14 million. Does she agree that a National Audit Office investigation is important for the people of Woking as well, because there is clearly inadequate scrutiny of decision making on public money?
Lisa Nandy
There is a wider point here, which is that devolution matters but it matters for a reason. It matters because decisions taken closer to people, driven by the people of the place they call home and for the benefit of those people, have the ability to transform lives. We need and deserve proper robust scrutiny arrangements and accountability in every part of the country, not just some, in order to ensure that.
I am sick and tired of hearing Conservative Members making accusations at our doorstep about unfounded allegations and naysaying about regeneration in the north-east. They are wrong and I suspect that they know it. The Labour Front-Bench team has not made allegations against Teesworks and the development corporation, and we will not do so before any investigation reports back. What we have asked for is honesty, transparency and clarity about what appears on the face of it to be an incredibly murky situation. It is the clear breakdown of local accountability that is sufficiently alarming that an investigation by the National Audit Office is required. We want to see this resolved. Conservative Members should want to see this resolved for the benefit of people on Teesside. The South Tees Mayor believes that is the case, as do three Select Committee Chairs, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State—if he did not, no investigation at all would be forthcoming. Let me be clear that the Humble Address today is about ensuring that a proper, full and independent investigation can take place in terms sufficient to provide the public with confidence in the process and the outcome of the investigation. In hand picking a panel and terms of reference, the Secretary of State has done a disservice to the principle of independent scrutiny and to his commitment to devolution, which until today I believed to be sincere. He has made it harder for confidence and transparency to return.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and for being so generous with her time. Some of the claims she makes are quite serious and in this House we always want to act in the spirit of transparency and openness, but with these very serious claims, I would ask: where is the evidence—what is the basis of this in the first place? Perhaps she could outline some of the evidence she is using as the basis for making these claims in the first place.
Lisa Nandy
The hon. Gentleman might want to take that up with his colleague, the Mayor in question, who has referred himself and asked for a National Audit Office investigation. I do not know why Members on the Government Benches think his judgment is so poor that he should not have done that, but we believe he is absolutely right to have done that and we stand firmly behind him in asking for a proper investigation.
Incredibly, even by the standards of this shambolic Government, the terms of reference and the names of the panel members for this inquiry were sent to me seven minutes before this debate began. That genuinely is no way to conduct government. I assume that is where the Secretary of State is right now: sitting behind his desk knocking out terms of reference on the back of a fag packet. Clearly, I have not had much time, Madam Deputy Speaker, to read them, but on first sight what he has sent me looks like a system-focused review, rather than an investigation into what has happened. Ministers have still failed to give us an explanation as to why the National Audit Office cannot conduct its own investigation, a body that has capacity, resources and expertise, and is widely respected across the political spectrum. Instead, we are having a bizarre argument about the remit of a respected organisation that is patently able to conduct the investigation required. Can the Minister not see why the public would rightly raise an eyebrow?
It is completely unacceptable for the Government to hide from proper scrutiny. I remember a time when the Secretary of State could not wait to get to his place in this House. Nowadays, we barely see him. Where is he today? There is no clear justification for not ordering a comprehensive independent investigation from the National Audit Office. It cannot be right that hundreds of millions of pounds of public money have been handed over to a company that is now 90% in private ownership, and it appears that the Department has handed over that money and then simply walked away. This is a matter that has profound implications for people on Teesside, who rightly expect this site, through which they contributed so much to our country over so many years, to continue to benefit them and their community for years to come.
There is much we do not know about what has happened—that is the reason we need an independent investigation—but here is what we do know. When the 140-year-old steel industry on Teesside collapsed in 2015, thousands of jobs were lost along with a key political, social and economic asset for the communities of the north-east of England. In 2017, the South Tees Development Corporation began to collate over 4,500 acres of industrial land, including the site of the former steelworks, off the back of a Conservative Government promising hundreds of millions of pounds in taxpayer funding for the project, something we had championed and welcomed. In the face of losing that key economic and social asset, it is absolutely right that all options were considered about how to build a wide programme of regeneration around the site and that the combined authority was given the autonomy to determine the strategy to regenerate the site. Even where we have strong disagreements about policy, strategy and direction, that point is not, and will never be, in dispute.
However, in May, an extensive report by the Financial Times detailed how the Government had spent hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to support a project in which two private developers now hold a 90% stake. The deal never went through a public tender process. There was no consultation. There was no announcement. It also reports that those developers have secured £45 million already in dividends, despite failing apparently to invest a single penny of their own money in the project. In return for their role in securing the site, the South Tees Development Corporation awarded companies owned by the developers a 50% stake in the joint venture that would operate the project—a share transfer that also took place without any public tender. The new operating company, eventually named Teesworks Ltd, controlled the entire 4,500-acre site and its assets, including 500,000 tonnes of scrap metal. It was also given the option to buy any parcel of land on the site at market rate.
The announcement that freeport status was being awarded led the South Tees Development Corporation to fundamentally change its business model, according to documents obtained under freedom of information laws and published by Private Eye. Following that, in a complex two-stage process, the two developers ended up with a 90% stake in the project, also without ever going through public bidding. According to emails received again under freedom of information from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy—the Department with responsibility for the project in Government—one official only became aware of the deal via the media in January 2022 and expressed “concern” and “surprise”. The Financial Times reports that an official at the Department’s office in the north-east responded that he had received “verbal” assurance locally that the deal was value for money. Can the Minister see why such serious concerns have been raised on both sides of the House, including by respected Members such as the Chairs of the Select Committees?
It is at this point that we called for the National Audit Office to investigate this matter in its entirety, to restore confidence for investors and the public in what was an increasingly murky affair. Indeed, the former chief executive of the Audit Commission, a public body that examined local government entities before it was disbanded by the Conservative Government, says the evidence
“calls for a full and thorough investigation by the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee, as the situation now appears far remote from the business case originally agreed with Government”.
Mr Simon Clarke
It is important to be clear that he is himself a former Labour councillor. The point in this debate is that we are offering an independent inquiry. As we have heard, an inquiry is under way and the reasons the NAO is not the appropriate body were set out very clearly by the Secretary of State in his letter.
Lisa Nandy
Can I just correct the right hon. Member? As he well knows, this is not an independent or full investigation. Perhaps he also has not had the courtesy of having been given the time by the Secretary of State to look at the full terms of reference, but it genuinely beggars belief to try to claim that this is somehow politically motivated. If Conservative Members believe that the call for a NAO inquiry is politically motivated, they might want to ask the Mayor what on earth he is doing calling for one himself.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
In all of this heat, it might be wise to be clear about the independent role of the NAO. The Comptroller and Auditor General has letters patent from the King and reports to this House, not to Government. He is independent and makes his own decisions, and it was his independent decision that it would be appropriate, because of the size of the site, to offer the opportunity to do an audit. It is then a matter for the Secretary of State to decide whether or not he asks for that to happen. It is a three-legged stool, because then the local organisations have to agree to open their books, too. It is important to be clear on the record that the NAO is not making political decisions here; it is a very independent decision by the chief auditor of this country.
Lisa Nandy
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, which absolutely concurs with my experience of the NAO. Members on both sides of the House will have had experience of having written to the NAO to raise concerns, and all of us are treated with decency and impartiality by the NAO when it seeks to respond.
Unbelievably, the situation gets even more complicated. Questions were raised at that point about whether the NAO even had the ability to investigate. It turns out that it did, subject to the preparation of a suitably worded agreement between the Minister and the relevant body into which the examination is to be conducted. We called on the Secretary of State to provide such an agreement, which was met with radio silence. Into that void stepped the Prime Minister, who confirmed at Prime Minister’s questions on 24 May to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) that the Levelling Up Secretary had already announced an investigation into this matter, much to the surprise of our Front Benchers and Government Front Benchers, too. However, the Secretary of State has decided not to do so, instead preferring to hand-pick a panel of his own to investigate. Given that the Tees Valley Mayor has asked for an investigation and the NAO has the capacity and remit provided by statutory powers, we deserve to know why Ministers have decided to block that investigation, beyond what we have been told so far—that they consulted and decided against it.
Now that we have the terms of reference, let me say this to the Minister: it is utterly unacceptable to establish an inquiry that fails to ensure that all decisions that have led to the current situation are on the table, with no exclusion of factors that would impact a complete and fair assessment of whether the public interest has been protected. It must have expert support, administrative capacity and resources to ensure the same level of access that the NAO would have had. Any officials who worked at South Tees Development Corporation or public bodies on Teesside must be free to comply with an investigation, regardless of any non-disclosure agreements that exist.
The investigation must report back on what assessment the Department and wider Government made of the South Tees Development Corporation’s decision to transfer a 50% stake in the joint venture without any public tender process. [Interruption.] I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that from a sedentary position. Presumably, he has had a chance to read those terms of reference. It would have been nice if Members had been afforded the same courtesy. [Interruption.] The Minister is chuntering again from a sedentary position. That is precisely what we are attempting to do—establish the facts. That is what the Tees Valley Mayor is attempting to do—establish the facts. That is what the Chairs of the Select Committees in this House are attempting to do—establish the facts. And that is what the people on Teesside are attempting to—establish the facts. It says something about the extraordinary arrogance of this Government that they think that is an unacceptable request.
The investigation must confirm when Ministers were first made aware of the decision to increase the share to 90% and if an assessment of value for money for taxpayers was made in advance. Could the Minister confirm whether there was any discussion of the terms of reference with the relevant Select Committee Chairs—including the Chairs of the Public Accounts Committee, the Business and Trade Committee and the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee—or are the Government determined to show the same contempt for Members that they are showing for people on Teesside?
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend was going through the events of the past week or so and the actions of Government, which smack of a cover-up. That is the fear and concern of the people of the Tees area and the wider public.
Lisa Nandy
I studiously avoided trying to prejudice any terms of the inquiry in advance of their announcement, but I was given seven minutes for a cursory glance at the terms of reference. If the Minister wants to tell people on Teesside that they deserve two minutes to understand the terms of reference, he is very welcome. That is arrogant and shows utter contempt for people in this country. Having looked at the terms of reference, I share my hon. Friend’s view. To many people in this country, it increasingly looks like an utter whitewash.
As far back as 2015, I raised concerns with this Government that democracy must not be an afterthought in the devolution model. Where the public have been let into the conversation, it is because of some of our brilliant Mayors across the country, such as the Mayor of Greater Manchester and the Mayor of West Yorkshire, who have chosen to go out proactively and involve the public in conversations about the things that matter deeply to them and to their lives. As has been so often said, it is our right to have that information and to be in charge of our own destiny; it should not be in the gift of whoever happens to be elected. When the respected Chair of the Public Accounts Committee says that the measures that we have around transparency, scrutiny and accountability are not sufficiently robust, Ministers must take that seriously.
On the Opposition Benches, we believe that the people on Teesside are just as deserving of safeguards to ensure that the public money and assets spent and used on their behalf are used for their benefit and in their interests as the people in London, Greater Manchester or the west midlands. These are our communities; they are our assets; it is our money; and it is about time this Government started to show some respect for a country that belongs to us.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Let me try to make an assessment of how many people are trying to catch my eye, so that I am able to gently point out that Back Benchers may have a relatively short amount of time to make their contributions. I hope that colleagues will bear that it mind.
I remind colleagues that if they speak in the debate, I want them to be back in good time for the wind-ups, including the Minister. If interventions are made on a speaker, it is normal practice to stay until the end of that speech.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)
It is, rightly, a long-standing convention that Opposition parties in this place have the opportunity to raise their concerns through debates such as this, to deal with the big issues of the day and to use the precious time of the House to articulate their vision for the future of this country. On these occasions, the Opposition can choose the subjects, the words they use, the allegations they make and the inferences they allow to be drawn.
So here we are today, having a debate about a blighted and costly site, with a massive price tag when industrial activity ceased, that is being transformed for the benefit of those who live and work nearby, in a region that is on the up. The debate is not about the achievements to date, or the failure of successive Labour Governments and Members of Parliament to improve the lives of people on Teesside. Instead, it is a debate about technicalities. It is not about whether a review will happen, look at these matters in depth or be led by independent experts, because all that will happen. Neither is it about whether the facts will be established, as was raised by the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), because they will be.
Instead, the Opposition have chosen to have a three-hour debate about the process by which a decision was made to have a review that is led by one group of people, instead of by another group of people. It is a debate about how we have chosen to set up a review, in the usual way that we choose to set up reviews rather than in the extraordinary way that the Opposition propose. The Labour party makes strange choices.
I want to say this, because it is important: the Government believe in the people and the places that make Teesside special. We have backed them with funding and powers to level up, which was sorely lacking under the 13 years of the previous Labour Government. That was why Ben Houchen was elected as Mayor in the first place. His record of attracting investment and delivering for the Tees Valley speaks for itself. In that spirit, he approached the Government some time ago about an independent review of the South Tees Development Corporation and the Teesworks joint venture after the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) had made serious allegations in the House, which he will not repeat outside the House. I want to make it clear now that, as previously stated, Ministers and officials have so far seen no evidence of corruption, wrongdoing or illegality.
Lee Rowley
I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who can, perhaps, tell us precisely what corruption, wrongdoing and illegality he is alleging.
Clive Efford
I just want to point out to the Minister that what he is threatening my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough with is a strategic lawsuit against public participation. We have had debates in this Chamber about SLAPPs; in fact, the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who is sitting next to the Minister, has supported action against them and their use to cover up the Londongrad fraud whereby illegal money has been washed through London banks and financial centres. The Minister should think very carefully before he comes here and threatens people with legal action outside the House to silence democratic debate.
Lee Rowley
There is absolutely no silencing going on. We are debating, we will continue to debate, and we have set up a review to ensure that we understand the allegations that have been made. It is perfectly legitimate for me to point out that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough refuses to repeat those allegations elsewhere, and for people to draw whatever conclusion they wish to draw from that. However, it is also clear that the allegations being made threaten to damage confidence in Teesworks and its success—hence the Secretary of State’s decision on 24 May to commission an independent review of the joint venture.
On the “Today” programme this morning, the hon. Member for Wigan was challenged with the observation that
“there is a danger that political parties throw about allegations of corruption”.
To that point no answer came this morning, and an answer certainly did not come in the opening speech. Now that the Labour party has chosen to allocate a significant amount of parliamentary time to this discussion today, it is incumbent on Opposition Members to spell out their specific concerns. They may have tried not to do that, but they need to state the allegations about which they are concerned.
We listened to a long speech from the hon. Member for Wigan, who set out a factual case about the events that happened in the order in which they happened, but made no comment about what element of concern she felt about each of them. There have been no specific allegations; nothing has been forthcoming except rumour, gossip and innuendo. Perhaps the hon. Lady does not wish to provide allegations, but Opposition Members have certainly alleged that this is the case.
Lee Rowley
The hon. Lady has already had a significant amount of time in which to speak, and I am not willing to give her more time to produce similar innuendo. On 20 April the hon. Member for Middlesbrough was very clear about industrial-scale corruption, but provided no further information. If Opposition Members cannot provide specific information, specific allegations and specific concerns in this debate, that will show how little interest they have in the truth rather than innuendo.
Lisa Nandy
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, for intervening to make sure that some basic manners and courtesies are respected.
May I ask the Minister to stop this ridiculous politicking? I have just set out for him a series of concerning points that have been raised by a respected national newspaper, with evidence behind them, many of which are not disputed by those involved in the proceedings. I have explained to him why an independent investigation is needed, and I answered those questions on the radio this morning, as he well knows. He may not agree that the National Audit Office is the best body to investigate, but if he disagrees with that, why will he not tell us the reason? That is all we are asking for.
Lee Rowley
I believe the hon. Lady said on LBC this morning that no allegations of corruption were being made. In the spirit of being willing to accept interventions, I am happy to take a further intervention from her. What specific allegations is she actually concerned about?
Lisa Nandy
We are concerned about the fact that no value for money is being achieved in this project, because of allegations raised in the report in the Financial Times, which set out that hundreds of millions of pounds have been put behind a project that Ministers appear to have handed over and then walked away, in a company 90% of which has been transferred into private ownership, where two investors have taken—apparently; allegedly—£45 million out but put not a penny in. We want to ensure that that constitutes value for money for the public and that this asset, which belongs to the people of Teesside, will be used for the benefit of people on Teesside for generations to come. If the Minister can reassure us in detail on those points, it would be absolutely wonderful. If he cannot, why will he not commit to an independent investigation?
Lee Rowley
That is, finally, extraordinarily helpful. For the first time in multiple questions to the hon. Lady, she has actually given an answer. She is concerned about value for money. Excellent! We are all concerned about value for money across local government. That is why we have a best value regime, which means that the Secretary of State announces inquiries and reviews, and appoints people to undertake them. The hon. Lady and her Front Bench team know that, because we have talked about it on numerous occasions in this place. They are completely aware of the best value regime that this Government use, because in 1999 it was the Labour party that endorsed that regime as part of its legislation.
Lee Rowley
I will give way to my right hon. Friend, who actually knows what he is talking about on this issue.
Mr Clarke
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that it is Labour’s own regime that we are applying, but can we also get on record the fact that Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities officials do not believe that the threshold for a best value investigation has been met in this case? That is to say, the civil service does not believe that such an investigation is merited. We are doing it to dispel the allegations and smears from the Opposition.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for clarifying that important point, particularly in respect of the Department.
It is important, given the inferences by the Opposition, to highlight what has actually been put in place. The specific terms of reference and the announcement that was made long before today are clear about the intention of the Government to clarify this matter. The review will be led by Angie Ridgwell, who is currently chief executive of Lancashire County Council and has over 30 years of experience across local government, central Government and the private sector. She will be supported by Quentin Baker, a qualified solicitor and director of law and governance at Hertfordshire County Council, and by Richard Paver, who brings significant financial experience and knowledge of combined authorities from his previous role as the first treasurer of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority. They bring significant experience of senior public leadership, specific financial and legal expertise, and confidence of detailed scrutiny. All Members of the House should support their important work so that they can proceed quickly and free from partisan comments.
There is still time for Labour Members to articulate why they are suddenly so keen on NAO-led inquiries in local government when they have not been keen on them before. When there are challenges or potential questions, there is a long-standing precedent of someone other than the NAO reviewing and assessing those concerns. Why should Labour Members know this? Because, as I said, they endorsed this process in the Local Government Act 1999. They confirmed that the Secretary of State could determine the approach where there were questions about local government bodies, and as far as I am aware, they have not critiqued the use of those powers when they have been used multiple times before, including in the last few weeks. Perhaps Labour Members could tell me which parts of the Local Government Act 1999—their Act, their decisions, their choices—they have randomly, abruptly and arbitrarily decided, simply for the purposes of an Opposition day debate, that they no longer wish the Government to apply.
If Labour Members are deciding that they no longer want to use the established regime, perhaps they could tell me which of the established reviews, inquiries, panels or commissioners they wish to switch into their newly preferred process. I do not remember this being requested when the Secretary of State intervened following an external review of Labour-led Sandwell Council in 2021, following allegations of serious misconduct by members and officers that painted a deeply troubling picture of mismanagement. Should we move that to an NAO review?
I do not remember Labour suggesting this approach when the then Secretary of State determined to appoint experts to carry out an inspection at Labour-led Liverpool City Council in 2020 as a result of arrests made on suspicion of fraud, bribery, corruption and misconduct in public office. [Interruption.] There is a lot of chuntering on the Opposition Benches, but are they seeking to bring the NAO into that? The hon. Member for Wigan talks about hand-picking, but the Labour party appointed its own inquiry into the wrongdoing. That inquiry was led by a former Labour MP, supported by a peer newly ennobled by the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). And I cannot remember the Labour party requesting an NAO review of Labour-led Croydon Council after a number of serious concerns about the council’s governance and risk management were outlined in a public interest report by external auditors in 2020.
The cold, hard facts are these: the Mayor of Tees Valley has had much success over the past half a decade in bringing jobs, growth and economic development to an area that is now on the up and thriving again, thanks to its Conservative leadership and its engaged and constructive Conservative Members of Parliament. On this specific issue, the Government agreed to a request from the Mayor for a review, which is being set up in a similar way to other reviews. Those who will be involved have been appointed as others have been appointed in the past. The terms of reference have been published using a similar process and, if there is an issue, we will deal with it in the normal way. The experts who are giving of their time and expertise should now be given the time to get on with the job, in the normal way, and to present their conclusions when they are ready.
Sir Robert Goodwill
The hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) repeatedly called the site an asset, but it was a heavily contaminated industrial site. Indeed the former Labour Member of Parliament for Redcar, Vera Baird, suggested it could cost up to £1 billion to clean up the site. It is now an asset, but only because of Ben Houchen’s actions.
Lee Rowley
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is one of the few facts that the hon. Member for Wigan left out of her contribution, in which there was no clarity about what she is actually alleging.
These are serious matters. Serious allegations have been made, and it is incumbent on us all to clarify the position as soon as possible, for the good of Tees Valley. The review we have set up will do that, and we look forward to it reporting in the usual way at the earliest opportunity. Members should welcome and support the review, and I hope against hope that, in the next two hours, they may still do that.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
This is an important debate. I raised the issue at Prime Minister’s questions a month ago, and I stand here today unsatisfied at this Government’s progress on being transparent with the people of this country on such a crucial issue.
This debate is not only about the conduct of government, both regional and national, but about priorities, the economy, the cost of living and trust. It is a debate about hard-working communities in the north-east that are being let down by their elected representatives. The north-east has suffered the greatest cuts to public spending since the Conservative Government took power in 2010, through their programme of austerity and their abolition of our regional development agency, One North East, which focused economic regeneration across the region from Sunderland to Teesside—its abolition damaged our economic prospects.
The beauty parade of the levelling-up competitions since 2019 was exposed by the BBC “Panorama” programme last year for tilting investment to the wealthy Conservative seats of Richmond and Newark while places like Stockton and Billingham missed out. The dereliction of the former Prime Minister David Cameron and the then Business Secretary, Sajid Javid, in letting the Redcar steel site collapse in 2015 was a shocking contrast to the intervention under Labour in 2009, which allowed the site’s rebirth with SSI.
Conservative Governments under five successive Prime Ministers have undermined both private and public investment in the north-east of England, which is why the people of Tees Valley were entitled to hope that, despite abandoning steel on Teesside eight years ago, the Tories’ belated promise to develop the SSI site would be made good.
In Sunderland, we know the importance of investment, because it gave birth to Nissan and its advanced manufacturing supply chain. We know the benefits that industrial rejuvenation provides in terms of good jobs that are skilled, well-paid and vital to local pride. On Teesside, the site that has become known as Teesworks is rightly billed as the biggest industrial opportunity in Europe. A large-scale site, connected to the port, with good energy supplies and the experienced industrial workforce on Teesside is not just a regional opportunity for the people of Middlesbrough, Stockton, Redcar, Hartlepool and the wider north-east; it should be an international opportunity for the UK.
That is what makes the details that have emerged about the activities of Ben Houchen and the South Tees Development Corporation so troubling. It is why this attempt by the Conservative Government to water down transparency and accountability is so damaging to the confidence that private investors need to have if Teesworks is going to be a success, as we all want it to be. It is why last month I asked the Prime Minister whether he or any of his Ministers had given commitments to BP, Equinor or any other companies about contracts at the Teesworks site. I was appalled by the triviality of his reply, when he asserted:
“Contracts at the site will be a commercial matter for the companies involved.”—[Official Report, 10 May 2023; Vol. 732, c. 334.]
We know already that interventions by STDC are shaking the confidence of outside investors. We need the confidence of an inquiry that only the NAO can provide, because we know that other issues in Tees Valley are already giving private investors cause for concern about their investments due to the behaviour of the Mayor and actors around the combined authority.
The Financial Times has done a superlative job of setting out the complicated issues around Teesworks. Another report by Jennifer Williams today about issues with Mayor Ben Houchen’s approach to PD Ports suggests there are wider behavioural issues at stake. Its headline reads, “UK port accuses Ben Houchen of wasting public funds in legal action”, and, “Mayor accused of risking ‘the public purse and the reputation of Teesside’”. As the article states:
“PD Ports owns and operates Teesport, the country’s fifth-largest port by tonnage”.
It is an important asset for the north of England. Back in April 2021, The Daily Telegraph reported that the Mayor was
“mulling an audacious takeover of PD Ports”,
which is owned by Brookfield, and was seeking to “absorb” its container gateway. It is not for me to comment on a Conservative Mayor’s seeming addiction to nationalising economic assets, but since that article the issue has ended up in court.
Given the troubles at Teesworks, the Financial Times reports:
“Court papers filed by PD accused the STDC of foul play, claiming its chief operating officer at the time, Jerry Hopkinson, was told by then-STDC board member Paul Booth that the corporation’s intention was to buy the port ‘at a discount’ by denying access to its land and then ‘flip it to make a profit’.”
Mr Booth contests the account, while STDC itself says that the comments
“were made in a personal capacity”.
This is concerning. The problem that the people of Tees Valley and the country face is that there are clearly now a series of issues regarding the conduct of elected and appointed officials engaged with Tees Valley Combined Authority and STDC. These problems reflect troubling allegations at Teesworks.
The cavalier approach of Conservative Ministers and the Mayor to transparency and accountability is harming the investment prospects for Teesside. In case Ministers have forgotten, the rule of law stands at the cornerstone of our democracy. Not only are citizens entitled to know that the taxes they contribute will be spent well and that value is not being extracted from the public realm due to inappropriate dealings behind closed doors; businesses are entitled to know that their property cannot be simply nationalised by local Mayors to, as is suggested at STDC, “flip a profit”. The only way to end the doubts that investors and the public have about activities undertaken by Mayor Ben Houchen, TVCA, STDC and Teesworks is to ensure that there is a full investigation by the NAO. There can be no confidence in the pretence of an “independent” inquiry touted by a Secretary of State who has, in his own words, already found his Conservative colleagues innocent of all charges.
Given the economic situation in which this Government have left the country, we simply cannot allow more taxpayers’ money to be wasted, as it is here. That is why the Humble Address has been designed to enforce transparency and accountability on a Government who have, at every opportunity, tried to hide what they get up to and left hard-working taxpayers in the dark. Ministers have been involved in Teesworks from day one, so why has it taken the work of investigative journalists to bring this to light for the Government to realise that this merits an investigation at all? Is this wilful ignorance, or is it a fear of the public knowing what is really going on?
We have the covid inquiry, the hidden communications, the whole Boris Johnson Administration, and now this.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. That is the second time the hon. Lady has referred to sitting Members by name. I know that it is complicated because there are former Prime Ministers and former Secretaries of State who can be referred to by name, but, otherwise, Members must be referred to by their constituency, as I am sure the hon. Lady well knows.
Julie Elliott
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.
As I and many other colleagues have noted, there is a way out of this for the Government. They can commit to the full National Audit Office investigation, which is so needed in an issue as important as this. They can let go of the idea of the Secretary of State picking the people he wants to carry out the investigation, as has happened with the investigation into the ecocide off the coast of Teesside, and let the NAO do its job, as it has the experience, capacity and independence to do this properly. There must be a reason why the Government do not want this to happen. I ask the Minister, as the Secretary of State is not in his place: why will he not support Labour’s call for a comprehensive, independent investigation by the NAO, so that we can get to the bottom of what has actually gone on? Does he know something that the rest of us do not? When the investigation takes place, can he assure the House that those who were engaged in the process will be able to speak freely and honestly, irrespective of any non-disclosure agreements in place? That is extremely important, because the investigation needs to be thorough, transparent, and, above all, trusted. I know that “trust” and “honesty” are not the buzzwords of this Government, and they are not the buzzwords of this process, but they need to be.
Jill Mortimer (Hartlepool) (Con)
We all know why we are here. This has all transpired because of allegations made by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald). Interestingly, he will not repeat those allegations outside of this Chamber and the immunity that it provides. At the end of May, I listened to “World at One” in which the hon. Gentleman was asked directly about the accusations that he made in the Chamber. Hats off to him: he performed verbal gymnastic feats of which Olga Korbut would have been proud. I have never heard anybody evade answering a direct question quite so well. I shall stop complimenting him now.
Mayor Ben Houchen and the Teesworks board were perfectly open to a National Audit Office review. I must declare an interest here: I sit on the Public Accounts Committee and I have every faith in the NAO to perform that review. However, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities decided not to go down that route, and for good reason—it is completely understandable why it made that decision. It would be an extension of the powers of the NAO, giving it jurisdiction over local authorities, which it currently does not have, and that could set an unnecessary and regrettable precedent.
There is to be an independent inquiry, which will follow the rules laid down in the Local Government Act 1972, and that should be sufficient for everybody. Sadly, those on the Opposition Benches once again seem intent on spreading scurrilous rumours and baseless accusations for their own political ends. They know that casting a shadow of doubt over the Teesworks site will deter investors—investors who would provide jobs and grow the economy throughout the region for our people. Labour Members once again want to keep the poor poor. They are the enemy of aspiration and the friend of misery, and only by keeping their big, red socialist boot on the throat of the electorate can they hope for re-election. Conservative Members choose to be positive and to support people into well-paid jobs. We seek only to bring good futures, regeneration, growth and opportunity to our region, a region that Labour has ignored and taken for granted for generations.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I get the sense that there are quite strong feelings in this debate. I hope that everyone will bear in mind that we expect temperate and moderate language, and we expect the debate to be like that.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
I want to raise three concerns in particular regarding Teesworks and Teesside. First, there are serious questions on the oversight of contracts that the Tees Valley Combined Mayoral Authority or its bodies have entered into on the land deal and other contracts relating to Teesworks, and the management of the project is risking its success. Secondly, there needs to be more scrutiny over the process by which contracts are won, not only at Teesworks, but at a sister structure in the airport. Thirdly, the Government’s model of mayoral development corporations lacks sufficient local democratic scrutiny and accountability checks.
I want to add to the genuine arguments already made, in good faith, by colleagues in support of a full NAO investigation into Teesworks. There are simply questions that only the NAO can find the answers to—with every stone we overturn on Teesside, a new list of questions appears. Colleagues have already described the deal, so I will not repeat the details, but there are clearly questions that remain unanswered.
How did the developers first know to buy the option to lease from Redcar Bulk Terminal Ltd in 2019? What due diligence was done on their credentials to take over operations for the largest brownfield site in Europe? How much money have they personally risked on the project? Why was there no procurement exercise conducted for the relationship and no contract published?
Then there are the side deals that colleagues have touched upon. Failing an NAO audit on the entire project, will the Government’s independent investigation look beyond the land deal to the project’s side deals? Take Teesworks Quay Ltd, for example, or the contractors taking immense profits from the sites, and how those deals came about.
Those questions are all important, because we want to know that the progress of the project is by the book and that no corners are being cut, even though potential issues with the progress of the project have gained significant attention in the last year. Mass marine die-offs continue to plague north-east beaches, a worker only just survived after an excavator fell into the river and it is reported that relationships with significant industrial partners have flatlined, antagonised by the Mayor’s legal action. But the public relations operation churns on, aggrandising speculative jobs—as we have heard again in this debate—and investment brought to the area, and painting a picture that just does not match the reality.
Coming to my second point, I am interested to know whether the investigation will scrutinise the process by which contracts have been won generally. Again, my concerns have come about because questions raised about the oversight of the projects have been brushed away, obstructed or avoided. Teesworks’ sister structure at the airport, part of the freeport, is another Tees Valley CMA asset that has received millions of pounds of public money. The same two private developers at Teesworks became joint venture partners in Teesside International Airport Business Park in March 2020. What tender or public process was conducted for that?
Since the airport has struggled to reap rewards from the runway, it has turned to the business park to bring profit. In March, it awarded its first contract for the business park to GMI Construction Group. GMI was recorded as having paid for the lobbying services of Recognition Services Ltd, whose director, Graham Robb, conveniently sits on the South Tees Development Corporation board and reportedly does the Mayor’s public relations, too. What was the significance of that relationship in the awarding of the contract to GMI? What tender process took place, and why will the Mayor not assure the public that due diligence took place? We need to address exactly what is going on in Teesside with that web of connected parties.
That points to my final concern on the whole governance model in the Tees Valley Combined Authority. It is only right that constituents in places with combined authorities should be able to hold local leaders accountable to the same standards as they can the Government here in Westminster, but almost every week, we hear new, disturbing reports out of Teesside that legitimately question the probity, decision-making and value for money across different wings of Ben Houchen’s combined authority, following painstaking investigation from highly respected journalists.
Why has the Mayor been able to push decisions through, under the radar, with little or no scrutiny? What oversight of all those decisions really takes place, and why are the public not allowed to see any of it? Why are STDC and the developers allowed to mark their own homework? Why are the people responsible for the performance of projects also the judges of their progress? These basic questions point to a serious flaw in governance.
We are not raising these concerns to talk down Teesside. In fact, protecting and future-proofing the projects is the reason why these matters must be raised today. The stakes are so incredibly high; we need the projects to succeed. That does not mean closing more doors to scrutiny. Local accountability has clearly been unable to address these concerns, and Government supervision, or lack of, has allowed for what could be a huge failure in industrial strategy that affects the people of Teesside and our green ambitions.
This is an opportunity to finally right any wrongs by giving full investigatory remit to a body with the powers and capacity to probe deep into what has happened, including by ensuring that officials who have previously worked as part of STDC, the freeport or a related public body are free to comply with an investigation, regardless of any non-disclosure agreements that may exist. From there, we can learn lessons so that local communities can better scrutinise their combined authority Mayors through an operational structure that prevents conflicts of interest and the secrecy that has been so damaging to local politics and business relations on Teesside—maybe taking inspiration from the Welsh Government’s arrangements for Cardiff.
The Levelling Up Secretary knows that it is inevitable that this will all eventually come to light, so I implore him to allow a full NAO audit. If there is nothing to hide, why not open that door? For him to suggest that north-east colleagues are on a misinformation campaign is deeply disingenuous. Will he say the same of well-respected journalists, and news outlets such as the Financial Times, which are also asking these questions? I expect he will not.
I want these projects to be a success for Teesside and the wider north-east, which I care about deeply, but that should not mean that there are obstructions to finding out the truth. Selling a dream of success that does not match reality does not deliver that success to the people of Teesside. If the Government insist on proceeding with their own Department-led inquiry, it must answer the three concerns that I have laid out: why and how did the land deal and other contracts fall into private hands, what scrutiny is there of how wider contracts are won, and when will the Government remedy the gaps in oversight and accountability for the wider devolution ambition? Only once these questions have been addressed can we reassure Teesside communities that they are the priority, not private profit. Government obstruction without clear justification will only kick the can down the road, stalling any progress in the north-east. I urge the Government to reconsider their course of action.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I remind Members that we still have a large number of speakers to get in before the wind-ups.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
I am proud to speak today in support of Teesworks and our Tees Valley Mayor, Ben Houchen, as well as the process that the Government have put in place, of which more in a moment.
Teesside is being transformed, from our airport, saved after Labour let it drift to the brink of closure, to our town centres of Middlesbrough, Guisborough and Loftus benefiting from tens of millions of pounds of direct investment. We have the new mayoral development corporation to turbocharge the regeneration of Hartlepool. We have the Treasury’s northern campus in Darlington and we have the UK’s largest freeport on the Tees. Overshadowing, and indeed uniting, all of this is Teesworks, the largest brown-field remediation project in the country, and the beating heart of our industrial future. The site of the former Redcar steelworks was costing the taxpayer £1 a second as long as it stood idle. It is right that the Government and our Mayor have brought it back to life. Government investment of £246 million has been put in, but as we know, the cost of total remediation is some £482. 6 million, as independently assessed. That is the reason for the joint venture established with the private sector.
It is important to clarify exactly what has happened. The first point is that the site has never been a public asset. The private sector Teeswork partners brokered a deal to take back control of the land from the Thai banks. It brought the deal and the land to the South Tees Development Corporation, not the other way round. That is why the Opposition’s talk of no public tendering process having taken place is such a red herring.
The public-private partnership was agreed, moreover, by the TVCA cabinet, the STDC board, the Department for Business and the Treasury. Bob Cook, the Labour leader of Stockton council, voted in favour. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) stated on the BBC’s “Sunday Politics” that he understood the reasons for a 50:50 split. A lot of revisionism is going on now.
Alex Cunningham
I have spoken to the leader of Stockton borough council and he has had no part in any decision relating to the transfer of those assets from the public to the private sector. He is a member of the combined authority, not a member of the STDC board. It is important that the right hon. Member recognises that.
Mr Clarke
The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. Mr Cook voted for this structure and he cannot change that vote.
There is no credible suggestion that wrongdoing has occurred. Teesworks is double audited, first by Mazars and then by Azets, two separate auditors. There is then an audit committee for Teesworks. Here we come to the truly jaw-dropping fact that that audit committee is chaired by none other than Councillor Matthew Storey, the leader of Middlesbrough Council’s Labour group and the head of the parliamentary office of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough. He chairs that audit committee —what concerns has he raised? He is part of the audit structure that is now being cast into doubt.
It is noteworthy that in the speech by the shadow Secretary of State we heard nothing that amounted to a substantive allegation. We heard a series of inferences and questions that amount to nothing more than the same tittle-tattle that has characterised this process, with the exception of the allegation of industrial-scale corruption that has been made but never substantiated, because the hon. Member for Middlesbrough knows that he would be sued for libel if he repeated it.
Clive Efford
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Could you confirm the rules regarding declarations of interest? If a Member has a declaration of interest on the register, should they not refer to it when they stand up and take part in debates in this House?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
It is up to each individual Member to determine whether their declaration of interest should be made during a debate. Clearly, processes are available should a Member not do so and other Members believe that they should have.
Mr Clarke
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I can confirm that no such interest exists, despite desperate attempts to insinuate to the contrary.
Who speaks for the Labour party in this debate? We have the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), clear that she is making no allegations, but we had the hon. Member for Middlesbrough making very pointed, very serious allegations of criminal wrongdoing. There is a yawning gulf between the two.
The next key point I wish to raise is about the process that the Government have adopted to set up the independent investigation that has been announced this afternoon. As the Minister set out very clearly at the Dispatch Box, that is the legal structure for investigating when a best-value investigation is triggered. The irony here, of course, is that the civil service does not believe that that threshold has been met and has advised Ministers to that effect. [Interruption.] I have spoken to Ministers about this point and, as Ministers have made clear, that is the case. It is not Ministers asserting that this threshold has not been met: the civil service does not believe that that standard has been met.
As both the former Secretary of State and the former Minister of State for Local Government, I can say with total assurance that this process is normal and straightforward. In his letter to Ben Houchen a fortnight ago, the Secretary of State set out why one would not want to seek to extend the remit of the NAO in the way that is being proposed. We have the long-standing, Labour-instigated system of commissioning these independent inquiries under the Local Government Act 1999. The key point here, of course, is that it is not just public confidence but investor confidence that is being undermined by the Labour party. It is doubly ironic, therefore, that we have never seen Labour calling for a similar process anywhere else— as we heard from the Minister, not even in Labour-run Liverpool when actual criminal wrongdoing had taken place. To add insult to injury, was the Labour party’s own investigation into its people’s conduct in Liverpool independently led? No: it was investigated by one of Labour’s own former MPs and a former council leader.
So we return to the purpose of this campaign—this vendetta. It is an attempt to systematically smear Ben Houchen, destroy Teesworks and make Teesside poorer. We have seen this movie before: earlier this year, not one but two independent reviews led by some of the most eminent scientists in the country thoroughly rebutted the idea that marine deaths were anything to do with the dredging at Teesworks, but just moments ago, we heard the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) again dredging up those allegations—you will pardon the pun, Mr Deputy Speaker—knowing full well that they are baseless. Labour will seize on any excuse and take any chance to try to talk down my region. I am sick to death of it, and so are the people of Teesside, because it is not in the public interest: it is in the Labour party’s interest. That is why Labour pursues these wrecking campaigns.
Teesside has been rescued from a cycle of secular decline with some bold leadership and private sector investment, and the public back it. That is why, in 2021, Ben Houchen received 73% of the vote to carry on with his mission. I ask shadow Front Benchers to confirm whether they will respect the impartiality of the senior officials from the local government family who have now been tasked with conducting this investigation, and I ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough to confirm that in his speech, too. If they do not respect the integrity and impartiality of those officials, why do they not do so? What is wrong with the investigation that has been instigated this afternoon?
I directly challenge the hon. Member for Middlesbrough on this point, too—if it is established by that inquiry that his allegations of “industrial-scale corruption” are baseless, as I firmly believe them to be, will he come to this House and withdraw the allegations that he has made here? If he does not, it will amount to one of the most flagrant abuses of parliamentary privilege that I can conceive of, and I believe that he should be ordered to this House by Mr Speaker in the event that he declines to do so.
This is a cynical, shameless, seedy attempt to talk down Teesside, to imply wrongdoing and to damage the interests of the very deprived communities that I am proud to represent. I look forward to the report of the independent inquiry. I will be voting against Labour’s motion today. It is time to draw a line in the sand against this game playing by the Labour party. Labour Members have done it before—they have done it on the crabs, they have done it with the Teesside police and crime commissioner, and they have done it to the former Mayor of Middlesbrough. They know full well what they are doing. They abuse this place to make allegations, rely on others to amplify them outside and then feed off the clouds of suspicion and miasma of doubt that they create. All they have to offer is slander, negativity and decline—all the hallmarks of their toxic legacy on Teesside. Enough.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
There are seven Members wanting to take part in the debate, and we are going to do wind-ups of 10 minutes each. As the House can see, we have just under an hour for those seven Members. If people can focus their contributions so that everybody can get equal time, that would be really good.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Secrecy is a disease that is threatening a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the people of Teesside—an opportunity of thousands of high-quality jobs and a share of the dividend from hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money. It is secrecy that drives the suspicions, questions and doubts about how the Tory Tees Valley Mayor, Ministers and their cronies do business not just at the Teesworks site, but at our publicly owned Teesside International airport, which continues to lose millions of pounds and has twice been bailed out to the tune of £10 million using taxpayers’ money.
Tomorrow will be the 13th anniversary of my maiden speech in this House. I was happy that day to tell the world how proud I was to be an adopted Teessider, and that remains very much the case today. We have a wealth of resources, from our people to our amazing cultural offer. We have our beautiful countryside, our coast and our amazing industrial base, which has created so much of our country’s wealth, but we deserve so much more.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) and I have been consistent in demanding openness and comprehensive scrutiny of decisions and the use of hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money by the Tees Mayor and his close-knit band of supporters and partners. The fact that several national newspapers, led by Private Eye magazine, have made front-page news of how business is done on the mayoral projects on Teesside warrants a completely independent investigation not by a group appointed and favoured by the Secretary of State, but by the National Audit Office, which has confirmed that it could do one if given the green light by Ministers. The Tees Mayor is up for it; why are the Government not?
Similarly, I hope to see Ministers withdraw their opposition to the inquiry proposed by the Select Committee on Business and Trade, which would have the power to scrutinise in a way so far denied by all those concerned. It could also summon people here to give evidence. I have had all manner of concerns over the years as the Mayor has been aided and abetted by Ministers as senior as the Prime Minister himself, hiding not just the decisions made about the airport and the Teesworks site, but how those decisions were reached, who was involved and who was excluded.
I do not know whether you have heard of the Darwin’s bark spider, Mr Deputy Speaker. It weaves the largest and most dense webs in the world. They can be as large as 28,000 sq cm, but that spider has nothing on the Tees Mayor when it comes to creating dense webs of secrecy, with organisations, companies and even charities created in an attempt to dodge full and proper scrutiny of how he and his mates do business and spend public money on what is referred to as the UK’s biggest levelling-up project.
As has been alluded to, things came to a head last year when a record posted with Companies House showed that the once public asset that is the Teesworks site is now 90% owned by a small group of local businessmen, the shares having been transferred to them by the Tees Mayor and the board of the South Tees Development Corporation, but we still do not know why such a decision was taken and who exactly was party to it. For certain, it was not taken by the Tees Valley Combined Authority, made up of the elected Mayor and the elected leaders of the five local authorities. They were not even consulted, as far as I know.
The Mayor thinks he had to do business with two men in particular, Chris Musgrave and Martin Corney, because they owned what can only be described as a ransom strip of land on the Teesworks site and they would take on the liability of the hundreds of millions still needed to remediate the site. I have an issue with both his reasons, or perhaps “excuses” is a better word. The Tees Mayor took on the might of the Thai banks, which owned most of the site after SSI walked out on Teesside and ended over 100 years of steel production. He decided he would go as far as a compulsory purchase order, and to his credit, he acquired the site for the public. Why, then, did he not take similar action against the two local businessmen who were holding the public to ransom? He will not answer that question, but perhaps the Minister can help.
The Minister may also be able to help over the costs of the remediation of the site. The Government get no accolades for allowing the steel industry to die on Teesside, but I do give them credit for agreeing to fund the remediation of the site so it could be fully developed. During his short-lived tenure as the Government investment tsar for the Tees Valley, Lord Michael Heseltine—I am quoting him directly—said:
“The money to clean up the site will be what it costs. No-one knows what the condition of the site is and although there have been estimates, they are estimates based on guess work. So it is much better to make it clear”—
and I agree that it is much better to make it clear that—
“central government will pay the clean-up costs and underwrite them whatever the bill comes to.”
Successive promises were made by Government Minsters that the Treasury would fund that work, so there was never any need to find private capital.
We have heard the Tees Mayor claim that he may have been naive in some of his dealings, but never did anything illegal. That may well be the case, but that naivety has cost our communities on Teesside the chance to share the dividends from the site and the public money invested in it. Sadly, however, we go back to the word “secrecy”. Were other companies and organisations considered for partnering with the Teesworks site? Were other offers made for the land? I have heard of one, and that was increased. What were the criteria and business case for selecting partners? It is all very much a secret, and none of the decision-making bodies is subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
I do not want to repeat all the accusations laid at the doors of the Mayor and his friends by the FT, The Times, the Daily Mirror and The Guardian, but I do hope we can get a fully independent investigation by the NAO into the wholesale transfer of assets, including the tens of millions of pounds of on-site scrap, to the private sector. That includes the Private Eye claim—a claim yet to be denied by the Mayor or anyone else—that Orion Kotrri, Mr Musgrave’s son-in-law, has been running the scrap operation. The South Tees Development Corporation has refused to say why he was selected for the role, who employs him or how he is paid. It is no secret that the business is being kept in the family.
The media and others are right that there are critical questions over how a bunch of local businessmen could already have extracted around £50 million in cash and assets from Britain’s biggest levelling-up project before a single business has begun operating on the site, and apparently without investing themselves. Perhaps all those concerned with the scrap should meet the challenge from The Northern Echo, which has said:
“There must be a ledger showing how much scrap has been sold which can put the facts in the open and enable people to judge whether there is any truth in the rumour”—
that is, the rumour of poor management.
Alex Cunningham
I will not.
Is the Minister aware of any such ledger of what are public assets, of where they have gone, and of what cost and value? Private Eye has established that decisions have been pushed through a board of the South Tees Development Corporation dominated by Houchen placemen and women in unrecorded discussions. Surely Ministers will recognise that they have some cleaning up to do. All we are seeking is for the truth to come to light. If the claims are not true, why is the Mayor not coming forward to publish all the relevant documents? Why is he not challenging, through the courts if necessary, all these media claims that he simply dismisses?
I would love to see the promises made by the Tees Mayor come to fruition. I want our communities to benefit from the jobs, but from much more than that too. Just as London boroughs benefit from the massive council tax base, those on Teesside could benefit from the dividends from Teesworks, and goodness knows we need it. Our community in the Tees Valley faces soaring levels of hardship compared with the national average. Research released on Monday by the End Child Poverty coalition showed that, in Stockton-on-Tees alone, over 40,000 children are living below the poverty line.
The picture is the same across all of the constituencies of Members from Teesside represented in the Chamber, but time and again we have seen the Mayor and his Government fail our area. They failed to do anything to retain steelmaking on Teesside. Despite claims of help on the way, they allowed our historic and world-leading Cleveland Bridge and Engineering Company to go to the wall, with the loss of hundreds of highly skilled jobs. When the Sirius mine got into cash-flow difficulties, the Mayor promised help, but his Government brokered a deal for a multinational company to take over, leaving thousands of local investors with very little. Many of them were former steelworkers who had invested their redundancy pay in the venture. Who knows what could have been done if business had been handled in a different way on Teesside, with public benefit being the focus.
We need assets on Teesside. We need investment. We need to know what is going on with people’s existing assets and how they are being disposed of. If there are huge profits to be made from Teesworks—the scrap alone is said to be worth £100 million—surely they should be going into our communities for development and quality services and not almost exclusively into the pockets of private companies. We need answers. We need openness and transparency. We need to see an end to this secrecy.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I work out that if people keep to roughly eight minutes or so, everybody will get a fair go.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
As a Tees Valley MP, I am pleased to speak in this debate that is so relevant to many of my constituents. I have to admit that I am baffled by the Opposition’s choice of motion for the debate. If I were them, the last thing that I would want to do is spend hours discussing the lack of investment in the north-east by a previous Labour Government. It is only under a Conservative Government that we have started levelling up. The Opposition’s demand for the National Audit Office to investigate is also surprising, given their resounding silence when my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) ordered an inquiry into Liverpool, where actual corruption was taking place.
Labour has 17 Opposition days, which are meant to be used to discuss important issues, yet it has chosen to use today to throw mud at a successful levelling-up story. Labour could have used today to address the country’s priorities, which the Prime Minister set out in his five pledges. It could have talked about halving inflation, which has started to fall. It could have talked about economic growth, as recession is likely to be avoided: the OECD predicts growth of 0.3% this year and 1% next year. It could have talked about falling national debt, with borrowing forecast to fall every year according to the Office for Budget Responsibility. It could have talked about reducing waiting lists. The figure for patients waiting over 18 months peaked in September 2021 at 125,000; in March this year, it was 10,737. Labour could have talked about stopping small boats. Compared with last year, crossings are down by 20%.
Has Labour chosen any of those subjects or talked about any of its own plans? No. Could that be because the news from the shadow Chancellor is that she wants to avoid unfunded spending commitments? Well, that would mean that Labour Members would have nothing to say. Could it be that even their supportive unions call their policies naive and say that they lack intellectual rigour and thinking? Where does that leave Labour? Back to the mudslinging and talking down places like the north-east.
I am sorry, but I am proud of the Conservative-led transition of the Tees Valley. Teesworks is an excellent example of an industrial area that was neglected until a Conservative politician, Ben Houchen, came along and decided to do something about it. I remind the Chamber that doing nothing with the steelworks would not have been a neutral act, either. Even standing idle, it cost the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds every week, while in 2015 unions warned that clearing the site to repurpose it for housing or industrial developments would cost as much as £1 billion.
The site required so much work to become usable again that its value was in the negative hundreds of millions. Until recently, the joint venture appeared to have a level of cross-party support among local politicians. For example, the Labour leader of Stockton Council voted for it, and the independent leaders of Hartlepool, Middlesbrough and Redcar and Cleveland all approved it. A wide range of people and organisations in both the private and public sectors have been involved in the development of Teesworks, which is another reason why I find it difficult to believe that there could be some alleged secret tie-up to swindle taxpayers, as seems to be suggested.
It remains a clear and obvious fact that although the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) alleges industrial-scale corruption when he is in this place and enjoying the protection of parliamentary privilege, despite many requests he has declined to repeat those allegations where he would have to defend them. Can I also remind him that another great success story in the Tees Valley is the resurgence of Teesside airport, driven again by the Tees Valley Mayor, after its almost total demise under the control of Labour-led councils prior to his election? The airport is now enjoying further growth in both passenger numbers and as part of the Tees Valley freeport, delivering economic growth and employment.
We have already seen remarkable progress as a result of the joint venture partnership, including the demolition plan that is two years ahead of schedule. Less than £250 million of public money has been invested in the site, yet it has already secured over £2 billion-worth of private sector investment. I must also mention in passing the 2,750 long-term jobs that are being created through this project. Job creation is always appreciated, but it is all the more important in this case, where 1,700 jobs were lost with the closure of the steelworks. Now that the site is doing well, Labour has decided to use it as another opportunity to talk down the north. Considering this was the first mayoral development corporation outside London, I think the record is pretty good.
The motion is about accountability and scrutiny of Teesworks, so we ought to note that Teesworks is double audited by Mazars and Azets, whose audit is then further audited by Mazars. Surely, if corrupt or illegal decisions had been taken, they would have been spotted by at least one of the accountancy firms, rather than going unnoticed? The Mayor, as has been said, requested that the National Audit Office become involved as a result of the accusations, but the Secretary of State decided that a more appropriate step would be to commission an independent review to consider the specific allegations.
As an aside, facts are always facts. The hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) alleged that—[Interruption]—Martin Corney’s son, sorry, had benefited. That is just incorrect. If the hon. Gentleman would like to intervene and correct the record, that is a choice for him to make. Silence.
The Secretary of State’s determination was that it would be inappropriate for the NAO to examine individual local government bodies. The fact that the Mayor requested NAO engagement would strongly support his contention that there is genuinely no corruption, wrongdoing or illegality.
I am disappointed that the Labour motion wastes parliamentary time and once again attempts to talk down progress in the north-east. It reminds me of the Leader of the Opposition, when it was announced that the Treasury was coming to Darlington, stating that it was not levelling up, it was giving up. With the success of Teesworks, Teesside airport, the Darlington Economic Campus and so on and so on, I for one am proud of what the Conservatives are doing to level up the Tees Valley. I hope that when we get a north-east mayor for the LA7, they will also be a Conservative and deliver in the same way that Ben Houchen has delivered, meaning that all my Sedgefield constituents can be as well served as that portion who reside in the Tees Valley.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
That was under eight minutes, so thank you.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
Much of the debate has been targeted at me and there has been a request for details of allegations. I trust I will be given the opportunity to set those out.
I am grateful to my colleagues on the Labour Front Bench for giving this issue such prominence today. I want to start by paying particular tribute to Richard Brooks of Private Eye. Without his amazing forensic tenacity and persistent investigative journalism over many, many months, we would not be having this debate today. Similarly, Jen Williams of the Financial Times has gone to the trouble of conducting in-depth investigations and has raised many pertinent questions, and The Yorkshire Post so courageously refused to be bullied or silenced. The BBC and many others have taken note of these matters. It is reassuring that investigative journalism is alive and well.
It is a complex web that has been woven and it requires significant attention to try to understand what has gone on. I share the bewilderment of those on my Front Bench that the Secretary of State is determined not to request that the NAO investigate these matters in full.
The core background to this saga is founded in the painful post-privatisation collapse of steelmaking on Teesside, which came to an end in 2015. It has left a massive hole in the local landscape and economy. The Tees Valley Combined Authority was established in 2016 under the Chancellorship of George Osborne, when the Labour Tees Valley local authorities, hamstrung by austerity, agreed to set up the new body, principally to focus on economic development and regeneration, transport and skills, led locally by Councillor Sue Jeffrey, then the leader of Redcar and Cleveland, Dave Budd, then the elected Mayor of Middlesborough, and others. In May 2017, Ben Houchen was elected as Tees Valley Mayor and promised to bring back steelmaking to Teesside. Clearly that has not happened.
The South Tees Development Corporation came into being in August 2017, its principal task to assemble various pieces of land and bring them into public ownership to facilitate development, with the levering in of private investment a key element. People like Sir Alan Cockshaw, a most highly respected figure in the business world, Steve Gibson, the chair of Middlesbrough football club and Bulkhaul, and Paul Booth of Sabic all served on the STDC board and put in many hours of unpaid time—and, indeed, flew to Thailand at their own expense to further the negotiations with SSI’s creditors to free up and secure the land.
The plan of the original board for development of the site was to remediate one parcel of land, develop it, let it, and then utilise that income to fund the next parcel, and so on. In effect, the outcome would have been a sovereign wealth fund for Teesside. All that changed with Ben Houchen’s re-election in 2021. Those hard-working and generous board members were sacked by Ben Houchen and a new team brought in. While the funding was allocated from central Government—from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government—to be applied over three years from 2020-21 through to 2022-23, running into hundreds of millions of pounds, the Government made it clear that they were not in favour of sustaining an equitable public-private partnership beyond those committed moneys and that the private sector should take it on. So that was, and still is, the determinant ideology, and the end of any thought of a sovereign wealth fund for Teesside.
In the following rush, these concerning events have unravelled. It would seem that the private developers were very smart and in the right place at the right time. They seized on the opportunity when SSI got into financial difficulties and twigged that SSI was prepared to sell a particular asset in an attempt to assist in addressing its own financial woes. They secured an option to acquire a lease of some 70 acres of what was then SSI land not far from the Redcar bulk terminal. That was sold to Musgrave and Corney by SSI for some half a million pounds. In effect, they became the putative default partner in what was to manifest itself later as Teesworks Ltd.
Other parties were interested in partnering with STDC, but they had no chance. There was no tendering process or proper procurement; there was no competition. Any inquiry will need to explain how these property developers came to acquire this key part of the site when the Tees Valley Combined Authority was pressing for a compulsory purchase order to buy the entire site.
More interesting things then happened in 2019. Mr Musgrave formed DCS Industrial Ltd, which was the vehicle for his Teesworks shareholding, and what we now describe as the SeAH site was acquired by STDC through its subsidiary company, South Tees Developments Ltd, from the former occupant, Tata Steel, for £12 million. This is the site upon which SeAH, the South Korean wind turbine company, will house its factory. The construction of the South Bank quay was made possible with a £107 million loan to STDC from the Government’s UK Infrastructure Bank.
On 29 January 2020, Ben Houchen reported to STDC about the compromise of the compulsory purchase order process. But board papers reveal that in early 2020, STDC recognised the risks of getting into bed with Musgrave and Corney. Its business case for the taxpayer cash 18 months earlier noted the
“joint venture partners lack of experience on size, complexity and hazards associated with the South Tees site”
and the
“differing governance requirements between joint venture partner background and public sector requirement impacting procurement”.
Despite that, in March 2020 STDC formed Teesworks as a 50:50 joint venture with companies controlled by Chris Musgrave, Martin Corney and Corneys’s father-in-law Ian Waller, all of whom paid nothing for their shares. I trust that the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) will correct the record as far as Mr Waller is concerned.
STDC stated at the time that the joint venture company, Teesworks, would pay market value for the land it elected to buy. That changed fundamentally a little later. In early 2020, options were given by STDC for Teesworks to acquire freeholds from STDC. In August 2021, Gary Macdonald, the director of finance at STDC, reported to the board that there was now only a five-year window for development, which meant that there had to be a quick use of Government funds and
“a transfer of significant risk and rewards”
to the joint venture partners
“to incentivise the required pace of delivery”.
Those are the very people that STDC had expressed such doubts about just 18 months before.
That all begs the question, what value for money assessments did BEIS, DLUHC or the Treasury perform on this project, into which such vast sums of public money have been sunk? We should be able to see the Green Book calculations for all the different stages, ranging from the initial 50:50 arrangements through to the change to 90:10 in favour of the JV partners. In November 2021, the shareholdings of Musgrave, Corney and others via their various companies were increased from 50% to 90%. Again, they paid nothing for that increase in their equity stakes. Remarkably, they then secured the major options to buy any parcel of land on the site. Presumably, the quid pro quo was that they would stump up when the public cash ran out. As STDC put it, the extra shares were
“in return for Teesworks taking on the future development of the site, together with the net future liabilities in preparing the site for tenants”.
The inquiry will need to see the details of the meetings between Houchen, Musgrave and Corney on all those matters. What did they discuss—and when—about the initial JV and the variation to a 90:10 split and the associated changes, such as options to buy land? Why were the share classes of Teesworks Ltd changed at the same time as the 90:10 split, meaning that no dividends have to be paid to the public sector, and can be paid only at the board’s discretion?
While the split was 50:50, the position was that Teesworks would pay market rates for the land it opted to buy. A freedom of information reply from STDC indicates that once the ratio was changed to 90:10, land acquired from South Tees Developments Ltd could be appropriated at a nominal sum of £1 an acre.
Teesworks did exercise its options to buy the freeholds constituting the SeAH site, but that was not known to the public until Private Eye revealed HM Land Registry’s entries dated 11 October 2022, showing that the river frontage, known as “new quay phase 1”, was transferred from South Tees Developments Ltd to Teesworks Ltd for the sum of £16.27, and VAT in the sum of £2.71. It also revealed further Land Registry entries dated 16 December, which show that a colossal parcel of industrial land known as “plot b south bank”, excluding the river frontage quay, was transferred from South Tees Developments Ltd to Teesworks Ltd for the stated sum of £96.79, excluding VAT.
Ben Houchen has said that the true consideration paid by Teesworks is actually £15 million, despite those Land Registry records saying otherwise. Apparently, the lower figures were adopted for tax reasons. If that is right, I am sure that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will have something to say about it, as might His Majesty’s Land Registry. If inaccurate or misleading figures are put on transfer documents, there are usually consequences. I hope the inquiry will examine those matters, as it should.
When will this mysterious £15 million be paid? In one of his many intemperate media rants, Mr Houchen claimed that the lands we are talking about have “never” been in the public sector, and that has been repeated here today. Really? Given the audit trail and what the Land Registry documents say, it is difficult to see how he could possibly sustain such an argument. I confess to feeling somewhat sorry for his officials, who have to sweep up behind him to sort out his inaccurate stories, but it still does not wash.
There then followed a series of transactions. Teesworks retained the freehold, but leased its 90-acre site to a private investor, now known to be Macquarie, the Australia-based global financial services company, for a peppercorn rent, for which Macquarie paid Teesworks a lump sum of £70 million to £80 million. In turn, TVCA, the taxpayer, leased the land from Macquarie, the investor, for an inflation-linked £3.65 million per annum for 40 years. TVCA then sub-let the land to SeAH for £4.3 million per annum. That means 90% of the £70 million to £80 million will be going to Musgrave, Corney, Waller and their associate Chris Harrison, who have 45%, 21%, 19% and 5% shares in Teesworks respectively. That is a staggering £65 million-plus instant payday for the Teesworks joint venture partners.
While Teesworks is the freeholder for both sites, a clause in the transfer agreements ensures that the publicly owned South Tees Developments Ltd retains responsibility for environmental liabilities arising from hazardous substances. So Messrs Musgrave and Corney are not, according to that document, liable for cleaning up the site. The concern is that these property developers, who have never engaged in anything comparable to this undertaking, have become rich beyond anyone’s wildest dreams, all with the benefit of public moneys and opportunities.
Then there is the scrap. There was an agreement between STDC and Teesworks that as the by-product of the clearance and remediation works on the site, the proceeds from the scrap metal would be shared. There are hundreds of thousands of tonnes of metal on the site—approximately 500,000 tonnes in all. Up to now, a total of £94 million of valuable equipment, metals and other materials have been taken off site, weighed or otherwise. The sale proceeds are shared between STDC and Teesworks, with around £45 million going to Musgrave, Corney et al. Does the Minister believe that that represents good value for the taxpayer, who only three years ago owned all the metal on the site? Can he explain what is happening to the rest of it, which is estimated to be valued at up to £120 million?
What was there by way of a tendering or procurement process? Again, as was revealed by Private Eye, running the scrap operation is a man called Orion Kotrri, who just happens to be married to Martin Corney’s daughter. Any inquiry will need to ask how Mr Kotrri was hired, what his qualifications are for the job, whether that job was advertised and who employs him. Incredibly, we have now seen footage of Ben Houchen on a “trade mission” to meet the Albanian Prime Minister and the Mayor of Tirana, along with Martin Corney and Mr Corney’s Albanian scrap metal dealer son-in-law. We need to understand why they were present, given the visit was billed as a trade mission about international co-operation in travel and education. What did Mr Corney and his son-in-law have to do with that?
And then there is security. There is a fire raging at Teesworks right now. My hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) referred to the injury caused to the man who fell into the river, and let us not forget that two men died in the process of remediating the site. NE Security Ltd got the contract, initially worth £2.4 million, to protect the site, and then, a few months later, a further two-year contract worth £3 million. There are certainly some colourful characters involved, as has been reported by Private Eye, including those with a history of insolvency who owe HMRC £1.5 million, including an estimated £1.4 million to the anti-tax avoidance unit. Let us not overlook the proprietor’s son, who is in charge of health and safety on site, who has been given a prison sentence of 11 years and eight months for his part in running a drugs racket that stretched from Liverpool to Teesside. Both, of course, now have freeports. You could not make this up, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is the stuff of the movies.
Much criticism has been levelled at me for speaking up about these issues. I have to say to critics of my use of parliamentary privilege that they really must understand that I will not be bullied, and that the use of privilege in this place is cherished and should not be derided. It is an important part of our democracy, and it is there so that Members of Parliament can raise well-founded concerns—as I have demonstrated today and on previous occasions—without fear or favour. So I ask those critics to grow up. They may or may not be advocates of SLAPPs, but they should be careful about embracing the concept of lawsuits being used to censor and silence critics.
As for the charge of being anti-business or “talking Teesside down”—a charge that is regularly levelled against me and against the Labour party—it is nonsense. Since the day I first set foot in this place I have been advocating the advancement of green industries, along with my friend and neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham). Not only are these industries critical to saving our planet; they are a key factor in bringing good, well-paid, secure, unionised jobs to Teesside, a region that desperately needs those jobs and is ideally placed, both industrially and geologically, to pave the way not only for hydrogen industries, but for carbon capture, utilisation and storage and so much more.
That is why the behaviour of the Tees Valley Mayor is so distressing. While my critics are still obsessing about me, I have to spell it out: businesses can read. Whether I say these things or not, these concerns are widespread, and if anything and anyone is undermining the confidence of investors, it is the reckless conduct of the Tories’ blue- eyed-boy in the north, Ben Houchen. If they really care about how public moneys are spent, and if they are truly as pro-business as they say they are, this Government must abide by their own declared strictures of “integrity, professionalism, and accountability”. They should wake up and smell the coffee, and join me in ensuring that these matters are fully investigated, and corrected, before it is too late, because if they do not, a Labour Government will.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
As I said earlier, the winding-up speeches will begin at 6.40 pm. Four Members are trying to catch my eye, so according to my maths, they have just over five minutes each if they want to use equal amounts of time.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
Having lived my entire life in Teesside, I know the challenges that it has faced, and I know the difference that being home to the UK’s first and biggest freeport will make in bringing investment and jobs to my area. It will create incredible opportunities for people to take up the jobs of the future in green technology and energy for generations to come. I understand that it will also provide a huge cash boost for local councils, with unprecedented revenue generated from business rates with the potential to turbocharge local services. Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council alone is set to receive as much as £30 million a year from 2026, and there is a hell of a lot more to come.
This is probably the largest levelling-up and remediation project in the country. Eight years ago the Redcar steelworks on the site closed, which caused devastation across Teesside, with 1,700 job losses. The huge site remained redundant, a scar on our community, and that redundant site was costing the taxpayer £13 million a year: yes, that is £1 for every second. The former Member of Parliament for Redcar suggested that it would cost up to £1 billion to clear the site. That has been done, and £246 million of public money has gone into the project, which has so far secured £2 billion pounds in private sector investment. On a site that caused so much heartache and pain, this project has already created 2,725 long-term jobs, and in the longer term it looks likely to create a total of 20,000 with the potential for a further 4,000 at the new airport business park. That is 24,000 great jobs that could make a huge difference to the lives of youngsters growing up in Stockton, Thornaby, Ingleby Barwick, Yarm, Eaglescliffe, Billingham and Middlesbrough, and not only are there jobs; the training is coming too, with the new Teesworks Skills Academy, as well as further opportunities being opened up in local colleges. These jobs and investments are a huge part of a bigger picture that has put Teesside back on the map, from the Darlington economic campus bringing senior civil service jobs and decision making to Teesside to saving Teesside airport, hooking up my area with the world and all the investors it has to offer. Teesside is on the up.
As well as benefiting from this and the potentially huge revenues that will come to my local council from the freeports business park at the airport, Stockton South is seeing unprecedented investment, including in a renewed railway station for Eaglescliffe; investment in high streets in town centres in Stockton, Thornaby and Yarm to bring back pride of place and support local businesses; a new purpose-built vocational training facility to open doors, opportunities, chances and choices for young people; and much, much more.
But there are always those who will talk down our area, deterring and jeopardising investments. They are more concerned about party politics than the interests of local people, and they lack the ambition to believe that we can do more on Teesside. When it came to the Mayor saving our airport after the complete and utter disgrace of the way it was cared for by Labour authorities, my Labour predecessor said that it was “fantasy politics” and that we should draw a line under the idea that anyone would buy back the airport. The hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) said that there was “no credibility” to the plan and that we would never see the money that was required. Well, with ambition and drive, Ben went on to save our airport and as the months go by, it continues to see more destinations and passengers added to its offering, much to the disappointment of the hon. Member. Now, thanks to its freeport status, the new airport business park is expected to create a further 4,000 jobs. Opponents are desperate to talk down our area, using parliamentary privilege to make comments that they are unwilling to repeat outside this place.
The decisions around the site, its ownership and its liabilities have gone through the combined authority cabinet, on which my Labour council leader—who I understand was previously employed by the hon. Member for Stockton North—sits. I understand that he raised no concerns about the proposal and that he in fact voted for the joint venture. Yes, the hon. Member for Stockton North’s former employee, the Labour leader of our local council, voted for the joint venture. Similarly—there is a bit of a theme here—the Labour group leader in Middlesbrough, who I understand might also by employed by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), chairs the authority’s audit committee and never raised a single concern about the venture.
Teesworks is, as we have heard, heavily audited by two firms with a double audit. Moreover, the use of £246 million of public money has already been investigated and reviewed by the National Audit Office, which found it to be properly used in line with the business case. I think it is fair for people to make legitimate criticisms over the direction of the site, but what we have seen is politically motivated baseless smears, insinuation, tinfoil hats and mud throwing, with allegations of impropriety that people are unwilling to state outside of parliamentary privilege. It is wrong to play politics with something so important to the prospects of our area when unprecedented investment and jobs are on the line.
I have found that the door to the combined authority is always open and that it is willing to answer questions from me and my constituents. The independent review commissioned by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities in line with established practice—I think Labour established that practice—will provide yet another opportunity for questions to be asked and answered. It will also allow Members of this House to put forward any evidence, if indeed they have any. The tinfoil hats and politically motivated smears from the Opposition have real consequences for the people that I represent. They deter and jeopardise investment, jobs, opportunities and the huge rates revenue that my council will benefit from. This is a huge opportunity for Teesside and it is time for my Labour neighbours to get behind it and work with our phenomenal Tees Valley Mayor so that he can continue to deliver incredible change, investment and jobs for Teesside.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The wind-ups will start at 20 minutes to 7.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
I start my brief contribution by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) on his forensic representation of this murky saga at Teesworks. The abuse and attacks will not deter him from unearthing the answers, as we can see from his fantastic speech. People need to back off and treat this issue extremely seriously. I give thanks and credit to Private Eye and the Financial Times for their fantastic journalism.
Ian Lavery
I will give way if the right hon. Gentleman says whether he or his party will seek recompense from Private Eye, the Financial Times and, perhaps, The Northern Echo for libel.
Ian Lavery
I was very gracious in giving way, and the right hon. Gentleman did not even answer the question. I think it is fair to say that the answer is no.
I also give credit to The Northern Echo. Despite its commercial considerations, and in the best traditions of that newspaper, it has put public duty above all other interests. It has published nine important questions, which are worth putting on the record.
The central allegation is that Musgrave and Corney have made £45 million from Teesworks in three years without investing any of their own money. By contrast, the taxpayer has put in £260 million, plus a £107 million loan. However, Teesworks says it has acquired a site that requires £483 million of remediation work, so it is a huge liability. Will the inquiry explain how much Musgrave and Corney have invested in the site? How much will they be required to invest in the site, and what is the business case for Teesworks raising the £200 million-plus that is required to complete the remediation?
Musgrave and Corney’s entry point into the development was through their acquisition of part of the bulk terminal site in 2019. Will the inquiry explain how those two private investors came to acquire this key site when the combined authority was pressing for a compulsory purchase order to buy the entire site?
Musgrave and Corney’s involvement has never been tested on the open market. Should there have been a public tendering process to find investors or firms to provide security for the site? That has been mentioned by virtually every speaker in this debate.
There is said to be 500,000 tonnes of scrap metal on the site. Sales have so far raised £90 million, with £45 million going to Musgrave and Corney. Does this represent good value for the taxpayer, who only three years ago owned all of this scrap? What is happening to the rest of the scrap on the site, estimated to be worth up to £120 million?
In August 2019, Musgrave and Corney’s stake in Teesworks was increased from 50% to 90%, apparently to speed up work so that the site could take advantage of time-limited tax breaks to create the freeport. Why, given the huge amount of publicity surrounding Teesworks, did their increased ownership not become public knowledge until December 2019, when there was a filing at Companies House?
The Northern Echo has posed a number of other questions, and it deserves so much credit for want it has done on this murky situation at Teesworks on Teesside.
I will conclude simply by saying that transparency, clarity, accountability, integrity and scrutiny are all very important in a democratic society. They all seem to be really lacking at Teesworks in Teesside. Show the people of Teesside the respect that they deserve, for heaven’s sake. Call in the NAO, as the Mayor and the Select Committee Chair are saying, to lead this inquiry.
Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)
In autumn 2021, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, on a visit to Teesside, said:
“If you want to see what levelling up looks like, come to Teesside.”
So let us have a look. Hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money has been invested to bring forward local regeneration and jobs creation. The Tees Valley Mayor says that £2 billion of private sector investment has been leveraged and that almost 3,000 jobs have been created. What we do not yet know is how the joint venture partners in Teesworks were selected, why they were selected, and how or if any other potential joint venture partners had the chance to express an interest in being selected.
What outputs projects may have delivered is not the subject of this debate. What matters here is whether this is value for money, who is benefiting and how. It seems to have gone quite well for the joint venture partners. In the space of a few years, they have gone from having a 50% stake in the company to having a 90% stake. According to the Financial Times, they have also received £45 million in dividends and, as far as we can tell, they have not had to invest any of their own money in the project yet. The initial share transfer of 50% took place without any public tender process; the decision to transfer a further 40% stake also took place without any public tender process.
None of that is sure-fire evidence of anything untoward having happened. However, although we cannot demonstrate that anything untoward has taken place, there is inadequate transparency and accountability to give the people of Teesside, and taxpayers across the country, any confidence whatever that their money and their assets have not been inappropriately or unfairly spent.
I spent 25 years as an officer in local government and it was impossible to buy a ream of paper without a transparently awarded procurement framework, never mind appoint regeneration partners and transfer public assets worth millions of pounds. In my personal experience, the procurement and partnership rules in local government, and the need for open and transparent public tender processes and procedures, often draw groans of frustration from officers. However, it is also my personal experience that local government officers are acutely aware of the responsibility upon them not only to spend public money appropriately, but to be explicitly seen to do so.
Arguably, Teesside is the Government’s beacon of levelling up. South Tees Development Corporation was the first ever mayoral development corporation to be set up outside London. More recently, the Tees Valley Mayor has been entrusted with another new development corporation, in Hartlepool, and, despite opposition from Middlesbrough Council, a new development corporation in Middlesbrough. So can we take it that the Secretary of State has confidence in the ability of the Tees Valley Mayor to set up and work with mayoral development corporations?
Mr Clarke
I am grateful to the hon . Lady for giving way because it has been reported this afternoon that the Middlesbrough Labour party is pulling the rug from under the Middlesbrough Development Corporation, which was established just a few weeks ago. Can she explain why that is the case and why it is forgoing the £18 million of Government support that that would bring, as well as the private sector support it would unlock? That seems to be a profoundly retrograde step for my town.
Ashley Dalton
It seems that quite a few of us believe that we should be looking far more into a wide range of these development corporations.
Andy McDonald
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on that point. Is she aware that the position of Middlesbrough Council was to say, “Give us the money, don’t give it to yet another self-appointed board under the tutelage of Ben Houchen”? Is she as amazed as I am that Ben Houchen has deliberately excluded PD Ports, the biggest employer and investor in the territory, from the consultation process? Does she not find that ridiculous?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Just before the hon. Lady responds, let me remind her that there is one more speaker to get in before 6.40 pm.
Ashley Dalton
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. What he has added enlightens us all and adds a lot to this debate.
As I have said, the current Tees Valley Mayor is apparently trusted deeply by the Secretary of State to work with mayoral development corporations, so why does the Secretary of State reject the Mayor’s request for a National Audit Office inquiry in favour of a panel, handpicked by the Secretary of State, with a remit, scope and authority hurriedly thrashed out fewer than 10 minutes before this debate began and which, by the sound of it, is not approaching adequate?
I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee and cannot speak highly enough of the National Audit Office. Perhaps the NAO has indicated that it could not, or should not undertake an inquiry into Teesworks. But not so: the NAO has said that it is able and willing to undertake such an inquiry. We can assume then that the NAO sees no problem with it being tasked to do so, from the perspective of its remit, its expertise or its capacity.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ashley Dalton
I will not give way as I am nearly done.
When it comes to the spending of public money and the transfer of public assets into private ownership, it is not just the decisions made that cause concern among communities; it is also when those decisions appear to be made in the dark behind closed doors and without transparency. That is when people start to feel suspicious.
Therefore, to help me, others on the Labour Benches and the people of Teesside understand the Secretary of State’s decision to reject the request of the Tees Valley Mayor, to decline the offer of the NAO and to set up a new panel from scratch, I invite the Secretary of State, assuming he is listening, to share his thinking, take the lid off decision making in Teesside and show the taxpayers of this country the respect and courtesy of an independent transparent inquiry that they can trust.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call Matt Western and ask him to resume his seat at 6.40 pm.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) was incorrect when he said that all the members involved in that decision were Labour councillors; they were not. That is categorically incorrect. I just want to put that on the record.
As someone who worked in procurement, I say, if it smells of fish, it is fish. This reeks of fish. The negotiations, the poor governance and the poor value for taxpayers’ money are a disgrace. Although this is a really important issue for the people of Teesside, the unfolding scandal has brought implications for the Prime Minister, for his freeport scheme and for this Government. What we are seeing is the first test of his freeport strategy and it is failing. It is thanks to the sharp investigative journalism of the Daily Mirror, which in January 2022 broke the story about the issues surrounding the project, that, ultimately, we are having this debate today.
The financial mountain that is being amassed by a few of the Mayor’s friends is colossal—friends who are also donors to the Conservative party. Fortunately, Private Eye, the Financial Times and my hon. Friends who spoke earlier in the debate have made absolutely clear the scale, the detail and just how widespread this emerging scandal is. It is a long story full of twists and turns, but at the centre of it all we have the Conservative Mayor, Ben Houchen, with the help of two counterparts, Chris Musgrave and Martin Corney, and a few others.
It is a dark web of friends and family, property developers, PR companies and scrap metal merchants—the scrap metal story is perhaps the most egregious demonstration of how perverse this situation is. Half of the proceeds are now going to Messrs Musgrave and Corney and their companies. The day-to-day operation of this is led by Orion Kotrri, an Albanian man who, as we have heard, is married to Corney’s daughter. I could go into all the other relationships, but they have been well covered by my colleagues.
There are more questions than answers. Seven people have spoken to the Financial Times to raise concerns about accountability and governance. We all want to see investment across our regions, and Teesworks is the Prime Minister’s flagship freeport, but there seem to be parallels here with the personal protective equipment scandal, given the network of donors involved in the project. This is not a scheme—this is a scam.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to close for the Opposition in this debate.
Let me start by bringing us back to first principles. The Mayor of Teesside himself has requested a National Audit Office investigation into the Teesworks joint venture. That is backed by the Chairs of three parliamentary Select Committees. The Opposition, as hon. Members have heard, support it. The media support it. The only people who disagree with this are Ministers on the Treasury Bench and their Back Benchers. The purpose of the motion and the debate is to establish why the Government have taken the eccentric course of rejecting an NAO-led review. Is there a sound public policy reason or is it a partisan decision?
My colleagues have made very strong cases. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) set out in significant detail the pain the north-east has felt over 30 years of austerity; I would have thought that Conservative Members would have reflected on that, but they did not. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) reflected on the region’s potential, which makes that pain doubly saddening. My hon. Friends the Members for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) and for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) raised a range of very serious questions that simply must be addressed by a review that everybody can have confidence in.
I associate myself with what my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) said about journalism and the courage of those various journalists who have taken this issue on. Despite all the criticism they have had from the players involved, they have stood up, done their job and shone a light on the issue, and we are having this debate today in part because of that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) set out an extraordinary, deep and detailed case, worth listening to by those colleagues who have sought to shout him down, both today and previously. He has shown incredible courage, knowing what is right for his constituents and doing what is right for his community when it would have been easier for him not to. There will have been days when he got out of bed, knowing the barrage that he was going to face, and it would have been easier not to, but he has too much courage to do that, and I salute that.
I turn to colleagues on the Government Benches. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) said it was inconvenient that we were bringing this motion today. I understand that, but I gently say that it is for the Opposition to ask the questions and for the Government to answer them—they cannot ask the questions as well. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer) hit the nail on the head when she said that the Mayor has asked for this audit. It is not so unreasonable that we should ask for such an intervention when the Mayor himself has done so.
The hon. Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) asked, as did the Minister in his opening speech: why are we departing from established practice? This is the first time such a thing has happened. We have never had such an incident involving an elected Mayor or a mayoral development corporation. Of course whatever we do will be a new and novel approach, because we have never done it before. Falling back on false equivalence simply does not work.
I turn now to the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), who made a bombshell contribution to this debate when he made it clear that he was basing his decision today on the discussions he has had with civil servants and the advice they were able to give him as a Back Bencher—advice that he knows we have not had any access to. At the root of the motion is the point that we need to know the information that is clearly available to some but not to others.
Mr Simon Clarke
I am afraid the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying that Ministers have not been advised by the civil service that the threshold has been met. That is a matter of public record. It is in the letter the Secretary of State sent to Ben Houchen at the end of last month and it was repeated by my hon. Friend the Minister at the Dispatch Box during his opening remarks. Ministers have been advised by the civil service that no such threshold for a best-value investigation has been met. That is not our view; it is the civil service’s view.
Alex Norris
I chirped during the right hon. Gentleman’s earlier contribution to ask him how he knew. I took from that—if I am wrong, the record will show otherwise—that he had had those conversations. Frankly, I think that that muddle is at the root of the issue.
Of course, this issue cannot be decoupled from the Government’s supposed commitment to levelling up the country—a commitment on which, as has become increasingly clear over the past 18 months, the Government cannot and will not deliver. We have seen a levelling-up White Paper which talks more about a Medici-style renaissance that a real commitment to our communities; a bodged levelling-up fund that locked deprived areas out from getting the money that they need; and much-heralded levelling-up directors quietly canned even though they were supposed to champion the revitalisation of our nations and regions. What a waste. What a waste of the pent-up potential of our regions, towns and cities which is waiting to be unleashed if only the Government were serious about delivering on their promise. Once again from this Department, it is all press releases, no delivery.
Teesside was supposed to be the flagship, the proof of concept, which makes the concerns expressed today all the more crucial. If this is what levelling up is, who benefits from it? Who is it for? The questions keep mounting up, as colleagues have said. Reports in the media outline how millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money have supported a project in which two private developers now hold a 90% stake despite seemingly never having entered a competitive process, and how those developers have taken significant dividends, outsizing their investment in the project. People rightly wonder how that has happened, who sanctioned it, whether value for money has been delivered, whether these concerns are legitimate, and if so, why has it taken dogged reporting on the issue, and colleagues in this place, for them to come to light?
Those are crucial questions that require answers, but rather than call in the National Audit Office, as the Mayor himself asked for, the Secretary of State has chosen to set up his own review, set the terms of that review and appoint the panel himself. We are now in the ridiculous situation where a flagship Government project that is facing serious allegations of failures in accountability is subject to a review set up and appointed by the Government themselves, and we are told that that will give the public the reassurance that they need. How can the Secretary of State expect the public to have confidence in that process? It is no wonder he did not come today and stand up for it, and instead sent the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), whom I hold in high regard, into an impossible situation.
Let us face it: the Government are on their way to court for a statutory review that they themselves set up, because they are doing anything they can to avoid being candid in it. Now, they ask us to trust them and put our confidence in a review that has not even those safeguards and powers, and they are surprised when we, the media and the public say that that is simply not good enough. We have waited for the answer today; it has not been forthcoming.
It is critical to public trust that the Government are transparent about the decision making that led to this process being adopted. The motion before us seeks to do just that by calling on the Government to release correspondence and communications pertaining to the decision not to order an independent NAO-led investigation and instead to commission their own review. For the sake of public confidence that all decisions have been made in good faith, and with the express intent to get the answers that the people of Teesside deserve, the Government should be open about how they reached their decision. That is all the more important because this does not relate to Teesside alone; it is the first project of its kind, with far-reaching implications for Mayors, combined authorities and development corporations. We need to know the truth now so that we can learn the lessons later.
The Government have had the chance today to establish a credible public policy reason why the Mayor’s own self-referral to the NAO, supported by everyone but the Government, was rejected. We did not hear any such reason from the Minister; we heard false equivalence about processes pertaining to different public bodies. Unless the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) takes this opportunity to change course, we must use Parliament to compel the release of the information behind the decision. We must vote for the motion.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
It is absolutely right that this place offers right hon. and hon. Members the opportunity to raise concerns about value for money or process, particularly when it comes to public money, so I am grateful for the contributions from both sides of the House, and in particular from so many fellow northern Members. Indeed, as a Back Bencher, I have on a number of occasions used the privilege that this House offers to raise concerns about other alleged wrongdoings, but I think it important that we consider our language, our tone and the content and context of the claims that are made. I think that it is wrong to exonerate someone without due process, as it is to condemn somebody without due process.
In the case of the South Tees Development Corporation and Teesworks joint venture, it remains the case that the Government have seen no evidence of corruption, wrongdoing or illegality. Neither have the auditors of the STDC, nor have my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) or the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton). However, the seriousness of the allegations, some of which have been made in the House and discussed today, could damage public trust, so it is right that they are investigated.
It is important to recognise that the review that we have commissioned was called for not only by Members of this House but by the Tees Valley Mayor himself. Our elected Mayors play an important part in championing their areas—convening communities, local leaders, businesses and investors to support levelling up in those places. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) highlighted, industry on Teesside was in decline prior to Mayor Houchen taking office. The project has the potential to deliver more than 40,000 jobs and billions of pounds of economic growth.
The Mayor has understandably raised concerns about the allegations made, recognising the damaging effects they could have on investments and job creation across the Tees Valley. That was a point raised by the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott). The continued allegation of corruption poses a real risk to our shared ambitions to deliver jobs and economic growth in Teesside. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer) rightly stated that those concerns and allegations—unfounded at this point in time—deter investment in the region, a point also made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke). As he said in his final words, we have had enough of talking down the region.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) said that people did not need to rely on his comments about the allegations being raised, citing newspapers that had raised them. But he must be aware that the Financial Times makes no allegations of wrongdoing, but merely quotes his comments made in this House. That is similar to the points made by the hon. Members for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) and for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western). They raised facts, but they made no direct allegations as the hon. Member for Middlesbrough did. Those allegations are an ongoing concern, shared by the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) and me. That is why my right hon. Friend has announced the independent review, which will address the accusations directly and robustly.
As the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) confirmed earlier in the debate, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has also now published full details on the review, including the independent panel that will lead the review and the terms of reference. I can assure hon. Members that, in line with existing practice, the Government have appointed a panel composed of external, independent experts with extensive experience at senior levels.
As the lead reviewer, Angie Ridgewell brings extensive experience of senior leadership in local government. She is the current chief executive at Lancashire County Council, having previously held senior roles across the public sector, including as director-general of two Departments. Richard Paver and Quentin Baker have been appointed to ensure the panel are fully equipped to consider the complex legal, financial and commercial matters the review is likely to cover. Richard Paver acts as the finance lead for an existing non-statutory intervention at Wirral Council. Quentin Baker is currently director of law and governance at Hertfordshire County Council and has 17 years of experience acting as statutory monitoring officer for several large local authorities.
The shadow Secretary of State raised concerns about the extent of the review and I understand that, given the time that she had to study the announcement. But she was not right to say that the review relates only to general governance, because it clearly specifically refers to allegations that have been raised, and the inquiry needs to respond on those issues, including commercial arrangements.
Members have raised the question of the prospective role of the National Audit Office. The Government considered carefully calls for an investigation to be led by the NAO. It is not, however, the NAO’s role to audit or examine individual local government bodies, and its powers would not normally be used for that purpose. It would not be appropriate to expand so significantly the role of the NAO by asking it to lead this inquiry. In confirming the review, the Government have been clear that we would welcome any action by the NAO to update its review of Government funding arrangements. These are all points that were raised by the hon. Members for Sunderland Central, for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), as well as by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), who described that position as eccentric despite the fact that it is the established process—a process that Labour actually established.
It is important in this debate that we do not lose sight of the value of devolution in empowering our local communities. Mayoral development corporations are but one tool at the disposal of our elected Mayors to support renewal and regeneration where it is much needed—in places such as Redcar and Cleveland, Middlesbrough and Hartlepool, where the challenges of post-industrial deprivation are significant but the opportunities are equally so. Local and regional government working together with the private sector is an opportunity to provide the leadership and strategic direction needed to enable growth.
Equally, this Government have been clear about the importance of accountability and scrutiny for areas with devolved powers. The English devolution accountability framework, published this March by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, sets out the ways in which we expect mayoral combined authorities to make themselves accountable to both the public and Government. The forthcoming scrutiny protocol will set out how we expect such bodies to create a sustained culture of scrutiny.
Once again, I thank Members for their important contributions today. We should be focused on ensuring the best outcomes for the Tees valley, so this is an important debate to have. Only a few years ago, the Teesworks site was a burden to the taxpayer and a danger to the public, with a significant price tag merely to maintain its safety and security. We should not lose sight of the fact that investments in that site—public and private—are helping meet our net zero targets, while providing economic opportunity and a sense of prosperity for future generations.
Question put.
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
Small and Medium-sized Enterprises: Great Yarmouth
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
First, I direct the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I do so specifically, not least because I feel passionately about small and medium-sized enterprises. I worked in them and ran them before I came to Parliament, and now I am again working with family businesses. A constituency such as Great Yarmouth is absolutely reliant on those SMEs—in fact, it is not so well known that our whole economy is. I will explain that in a moment.
My father ran a business, and I have always had a strong relationship with Great Yarmouth because his business—an SME that employed people—had a factory there. Because of how SMEs integrate into the community, even today, some 30 or 40 years since my father left that business, people who worked for him are still running a part of that business in Great Yarmouth. They are employing people who will go on eventually to run that business, and maybe they will set up their own businesses to form part of the Great Yarmouth business community.
Some 37,000 people in my constituency—roughly half of my voting constituency—work in SMEs. There are some 3,000 SMEs in Great Yarmouth. That sounds like a lot, but it is no surprise because across the country something like 99% of businesses qualify as SMEs. More than 50% of our working population work for SMEs. That is a huge number, and that is important, because these businesses drive our economy.
I have a strong interest in the housing industry. I was the Housing Minister, and I remember working with great house builders and household names, and some of the great multinational companies that we see started as sole traders and grew to be the big names that we know today. In sectors across our economy, there are big-name brands and companies employing people globally who started as family businesses. Some of them still are family businesses.
We need today’s S’s to become the M’s of tomorrow and then to become the big companies that grow our economy. We get very focused on the big names, and they play a hugely important part, but for constituencies such as Great Yarmouth—particularly coastal communities where the tourism and hospitality industry plays such a key role—SMEs are at their heart.
SMEs play a part for the big companies as well. The oil and gas and renewable energy industry has a huge presence in Great Yarmouth, particularly in servicing. Companies such as Seajacks, which work around the world, are from and based in Great Yarmouth. They are there because an entrepreneur from the oil and gas industry had an idea, took the risk and developed it in Great Yarmouth. Now, he is employing people from across Great Yarmouth. When clients come to companies like Seajacks and others in the energy industry, they often take their clients, visitors and customers for lunch in places like the Imperial Hotel in Great Yarmouth, and restaurants like the Waterside, or Planet Spice in Ormesby. Those businesses are integral to big and medium-sized businesses. It is a symbiotic relationship. Our economies work because of all of those layers.
Small businesses are generally family-owned businesses. If not, they are at the very least locally owned or locally run. That means they have a very keen interest in the community, which they show by sponsoring local sports teams or cub scouts, or just by being involved in the community and knowing their staff who are a part of the community. The businesses are an important part of it. We have spoken in this Chamber a lot, and in my roles in government I have spoken a lot, about the pub industry and why pubs are so important to our communities. They are SMEs and a hugely important part of the community. Like many other businesses, if they have a regular customer who has not been in the pub that day, they may be the first in the community to realise there is a problem.
An SME owner or manager will generally know all their staff. In my business, before I came into Parliament, I knew all our staff by name. That does not happen in a conglomerate, but it happens in small and medium-sized businesses because their owners and managers are a part of that business and community. They also respect the local community in a different way—not to say that big companies do not respect their communities—because they are so reliant on it for their customers and their staff. They are much more integral to the local community, and much more focused on how they can work for it and support it. That matters, because that is what binds our communities together. It also ensures we can deliver social mobility. People can move and work in businesses in different sectors across the country, knowing that wherever they need to move to and wherever they want to work, there is a community they can be a part of; not just a housing estate or a business but a community, and the business will be a key part of that.
SMEs, particularly in hospitality which is so vital to constituencies like Great Yarmouth, have had a really tough time. As we came through the covid pandemic, they arguably had some of the toughest situations to deal with. In many ways, it was one of the fastest industries to recover, because we all wanted to get out and about and do things while we had the opportunity to do so, but those businesses still need help. VAT has been an issue for them since it has come back up, particularly compared to some of our competitors around the world. They also have to deal with business rates. SMEs find business rates to be a challenge, as they have to deal with high street values and prices, while competing with conglomerates that have out-of-town business rate values and prices. Any business we talk to will say there is a need for us, at some stage, to ensure that we are cognisant of the challenge of business rates, seasonal worker schemes across hospitality—and agriculture in a constituency like mine—and the wider basis of regulation and tax.
We all want things to be safe and regulated, but we have to remember that big companies can deal with that more easily. They can put teams together to manage it. It will be a cost to them, but they can manage it. SMEs often do not have the resource to do that. They need flexibility to be able to work with their workforce. They often have very small margins and need to be focused on their customers, rather than on what is sometimes seen to be unnecessary regulation and red tape, so we all have a duty to focus on that.
The Minister will be absolutely cognisant of that. From conversations we have had over the years, before either of us were in government, I know how successful he was in the business sector and I know how well connected he is with the SMEs in his constituency, so I know we will be singing from the same hymn sheet. He has a reputation across the sector as someone who understands the sector and wants to deliver for it—something we all want to do. I just want to take this opportunity to be very clear about its value and importance, and to put on the record what we all know, which is why these businesses matter so much to our communities.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making a really interesting speech. There are many different points I would like to pick up on, not least the similarity with my own constituency, which is also a coastal community that is highly dependent on tourism for its economy. He made a very interesting point about pubs being close to the people and often being the first to detect when things are wrong—when people are missing. Does he agree that pubs and all hospitality businesses are very often the first to indicate when there are problems? Just today, I was with a group of colleagues talking about the impact of energy pricing on the pubs and hotels in their constituencies. The phrase, “They are the canary in the coalmine,” was used. Does he agree that that is the case, and that energy pricing is proving to be a real problem for them at the moment?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend is spot-on. That challenge has been fed into me recently by a number of businesses: they have asked what more the Government can do to ensure there is collaboration between the Government and industry to deal with energy pricing. The rise in energy prices is one of the big challenges coming out of the problems of covid and particularly the abhorrent invasion of Ukraine by Putin. The Government have rightly put protection in place for households, and I congratulate them on that, but many businesses are still struggling with rate rises of up to 400%. They are often businesses working on small, single-figure margins—often of 1% or 2%.
The pub industry is tough: it is hard work making sure the client and customer is happy and has a good experience. We need to make sure that we have the support in place to not lose more pubs. We all know we are losing pubs and that lifestyles are changing. It is not necessarily the Government’s responsibility to fix all those issues, but we do need to be cognisant of what more we can do to work with the energy industry to ensure that we have the biggest possible impact for businesses, as some of their rising costs through inflation go back to the challenges from rising energy prices.
My hon. Friend is right, too, that the hospitality industry is one of the first to see any warning light for our economy, as, indeed, is the housing sector. If we want more houses to be built across our country, we need SME house building businesses to be building. I know some of the chief executives of our big house builders. One of them, who sadly has passed away now, always said to me when I had responsibility for the sector in government that one of the challenges today is that the regulation and the restrictions on housing make it very difficult for people to do what he and some of his competitors did in the past—those big house builders that started as sole traders—which was to borrow money and get through the planning process in order to build even one or two homes.
If we were able to invigorate SMEs in the housing sector to build those small numbers of homes in our villages and towns across the country—wherever we need them; in the right places and of the right quality—that would make a huge difference to our economy, because it has a knock-on effect. It is not just about the house, which itself improves social mobility; it is about everybody who is employed in building the house, and about the person who moves into it going to buy some paint or whatever else to decorate it. That all adds to the economic boost and growth for our country, and it is why we benefit by about 1% of GDP for every 100,000 homes built in this country.
Our hospitality industry is a canary in the mine showing what condition the economy is in, as my hon. Friend said. Those businesses I was talking about earlier—the larger and the medium-sized businesses—entertain clients and customers, and hospitality notices first if there are fewer of them, if those businesses are taking less time to entertain because they have fewer customers and visitors, and if we as individuals are spending less money in hospitality.
It plays an important part in the economy. People think of hospitality in places like Great Yarmouth as being just there for visitors, but it is there for business as well. In Northern Ireland, I spoke regularly to businesses who would use the hospitality pull of Northern Ireland as part of the sales pitch for their business in the engineering sector. It is a very important sector for our economy, and it thrives and relies on those SMEs.
The majority of that sector is SMEs. Big companies like Haven Holidays have a huge presence in constituencies like mine, but it is the small businesses that knit things together and support people across the villages and the coastal towns. I have seen that at first hand in Hemsby in Great Yarmouth, where almost all the businesses are independent or family-owned. They have come together to protect the coastline and literally defend the homes of people, and they have helped people who have lost their homes when they have fallen into the sea because of the coastal erosion we have had over the last few years. There have been some very dramatic circumstances. The businesses with a sense of passion for their community —the publicans and business owners in Hembsy—have come together to drive the campaign to make sure we get the support for the residents who need it, as much as for the businesses themselves and the visitors who come to enjoy the beach that we want to protect.
I have seen time and again the importance of SMEs across the whole of the UK economy, as I have outlined. Many people—the majority in our country—are employed in SMEs. I know the Minister is cognisant of this, but in everything we do we should always be thinking about what more we can do to help today’s sole trader become a small business, and today’s small business become a medium-sized enterprise, with a view to how they grow into the big plc of the future; because without doubt for me in Great Yarmouth, our small and medium-sized, predominantly family-owned, businesses are the heartbeat of the constituency, and they end up being the heartbeat of our country.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before calling the Minister, I must say that it is rare and impressive to hear a content-packed speech delivered without notes, so congratulations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
I am sorry that I cannot emulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) by speaking without notes, but I will do my best to ad lib a little. I thank him for securing this important debate. I love his words that SMEs drive the whole economy. It brought back the words of Winston Churchill about the private sector; he said that some people see private enterprise as a predatory tiger that needs to be shot. Some people see it as a cow that needs to be milked. Few people see it for what it really is: the strong horse that pulls the whole cart. That is exactly right. Everything we see in the public sector and in this House is paid for by the private sector, the taxes it raises and the jobs it creates.
I totally agree with my right hon. Friend on the title and the primary content of this debate—SMEs are the most important part of the sector. As he said, I started a very small business and grew it over time, but the pressure we were always under as our business grew was from smaller businesses starting up and putting pressure on our market share. I listened carefully to his points about his father’s business and the legacy effect it has had on Great Yarmouth. That is my experience. Many people go into business for the potential financial reward, but also for the legacy: the jobs they can create and the business that they leave behind. That has a long-lasting effect on towns such as Great Yarmouth.
The Department for Business and Trade is seeking to make the UK the best place to do business in the world. We want to make it easier to do business every single day. My ministerial colleagues and I, as well as many others including my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, are for business because we are from business. We understand how this works.
My right hon. Friend made the point about smaller businesses that start up and grow to become larger businesses. That is the fundamental basis of our strategy to scale up Britain. We want the start-ups to become scale-ups. That is one of our areas for development. We are No. 1 in the OECD for start-ups per capita, but in a survey of 14 OECD nations, we were 13th for scale-ups—businesses that have 10 employees or more after three years. That is our focus, and there are three key focus areas underneath that: access to finance, support and advice, and removing barriers and red tape. Those are critical issues for the SMEs I speak to.
When we speak about business, it is important to speak about the entire world of businesses in all sectors. Hospitality is very important in Great Yarmouth, where 23% of all jobs are in the tourism industry. In his intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) rightly said that the hospitality business feels that cold wind first, but also sees the benefit of the improvement in the economy first, too. It is truly the canary in the coalmine, as he put it.
In Great Yarmouth there are some fantastic opportunities for the future, not least in green energy. My right hon. Friend pointed out the businesses that are benefiting from that. I am aware of ASCO, which employs more than 100 people, providing services to the North sea opportunity that is green energy—30 wind turbines on the Scroby sandbank. There are many more opportunities in that sector.
In the Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth enterprise zone in his constituency, South Denes energy park and Beacon Park are boosting innovation and growth in the region. More recently, investment through the Great Yarmouth town deal and the future high street funds, building on previous support from the local growth fund, is helping the local area by supporting jobs and growth in that region.
I will go into some specifics about the three areas of focus I referred to earlier. First, access to finance is one of the primary concerns for small businesses as they open their doors and grow. We work closely with the British Business Bank to improve access to finance. I am pleased that as of March 2022, the British Business Bank programme has supported over 96,000 small and medium-sized businesses nationally with over £12.2 billion of finance. The programme is designed to bring benefits to start-up businesses, businesses with high-growth potential looking to scale up and businesses looking to stay ahead in the market.
I know my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth has supported many initiatives in his time in this place, such as the important start-up loan scheme, which has delivered around £1 billion of finance to 100,000 companies. Those unsecured loans are vital to many people who cannot access finance to start a business. In his constituency, 95 loans have been provided, to a value of almost £800,000.
Inclusion is a priority of this Government, so I am pleased that in terms of all the start-up loans issued up until April 2023, 40% went to women, 20% went to people from a black, Asian or minority background and 32% went to people who were previously unemployed. Those are all disproportionately high numbers, which we should welcome.
Within the space of access to finance, we are also undertaking the payment and cash flow review. We know that is an issue for SMEs and we want to make it easier for them to be paid, as that is another source of finance. We have improved our equity finance offering through schemes such as the regional angels programme, supported by the British Business Bank, and the enterprise investment scheme, the remit of which has been extended.
We are looking at potential new opportunities on the back of open banking. Open banking was a huge success in this country and has been emulated around the world. There are now 7 billion API calls every month for open banking, connecting one banking app with another, and there are other fintech solutions. Open finance provides the opportunity to completely liberate opportunities for SMEs to access finance. Rather than going to their own bank and asking for a loan, they can ask many different providers for that finance, which will increase choice and opportunity.
Robin Millar
The Minister is following the speech given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) with another very interesting and helpful speech about what SMEs need. He is describing the Government’s role in creating an environment in which SMEs can flourish. Will he comment on the importance of the regulation to which he referred, not just to say that there should be as little of it as possible but to set out what regulation is effective? Will he comment on whether it is right for the Government to intervene when the market is failing?
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend raises an important point, which I will come to shortly. He is right to say that we should intervene only where there is an exceptional circumstance, such as covid or a cost of living crisis, or where there is market failure, which is where we want to focus. For example, with SMEs working in the hospitality and house building industries, which he and my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth both referred to, we know there is market failure and a need for them to access finance. We need to focus on those areas and ensure those sectors are provided with finance, when they cannot get it elsewhere.
The Government provide extensive business support, which is another key focus area, including through the business support helpline, the Help To Grow management scheme and a network of 38 growth hubs across the UK. The Help To Grow management scheme was launched in June 2021, to help close the productivity gap and lay the foundations for growth by providing SMEs with key skills in financial management, marketing and innovation. Our evaluation showed that approximately 90% of SME leaders surveyed reported that the scheme helped and Help To Grow management contributed to improved leadership and management of their business. I encourage my right hon. Friend, and all Members of the House, to share information about the scheme with local SMEs that could benefit from the opportunities it offers.
We know that businesses have emerged from the covid-19 pandemic, only to be faced with rising costs and dampened demand. In the autumn statement, we announced £13.6 billion of support for businesses over the next five years, including through reducing the burden of business rates for SMEs by freezing the business rates multiplier for yet another year, to protect businesses from rising inflation.
Over the winter, the Government intervened in the energy crisis by providing unprecedented support, in the form of the energy bill relief scheme and, more recently, the energy ill discount scheme.
The Government are freezing fuel duty, maintaining the 5p cut for a further year, and reversing the national insurance rise, which will save small businesses an average of approximately £4,200. That is in addition to the support previously announced in the form of an increase in the employment allowance to £5,000, the introduction of a zero rate of VAT on energy-saving materials, and the exemption of small businesses and microbusinesses from regulations where possible. That was raised by my right hon. Friend in his speech. These interventions show that the Government are on the side of small businesses, and understand the unprecedented difficulties that many have faced.
The last key focus is on removing barriers and cutting red tape. We are doing that through many mechanisms, such as improving the processes for public procurement, trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, and the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. The working time directive recording requirements will potentially save businesses more than £1 billion a year. Landmark legislation in the form of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill will make it easier for SMEs to access digital marketplaces.
The Government acknowledge that one of the significant barriers faced by SMEs across the country is late payments. We are determined to see those reduced to ensure that SMEs are given the best chance of succeeding and growing. That is why we are conducting a review of business-to-business payment policy, the prompt payment and cash flow review, which is scrutinising existing payment practices and measures. We need a stronger culture of responsibility in large businesses to support the smaller suppliers on which they rely. The Small Business Commissioner addresses small businesses’ complaints about payments and the payment practices reporting duty creates transparency by requiring large companies to report on their payment times, while the prompt payment code sets standards and best practice in payment culture.
We are making substantial investments in Great Yarmouth to help the area to thrive and succeed. The borough secured a £20.1 million towns deal in 2021 to help level up the town. One of the fantastic projects supported by this intervention is the operations and maintenance campus for the energy sector. The town has also secured £13.8 million of future high street funding to help revive the town centre as a vibrant economic, cultural and community hub. That will help the town centre to develop sustainably into the future, supporting footfall, further regeneration and investment.
Great Yarmouth bid successfully in the second round of the levelling-up fund, and the Great Yarmouth riverside gateway project received £20 million to regenerate the railway station and the North Quay area of the town. We recently agreed a landmark devolution deal with Norfolk County Council, which will bring a wide range of benefits to residents and businesses in Great Yarmouth. It includes a £600 million investment for a further 30 years, equating to £20 million per annum, and Norfolk County Council can borrow against that further funding. The Norfolk broadband programme was awarded £5 million through the local growth fund to extend superfast broadband in the county, and it is estimated that that will lead to a £2 billion growth in the local economy and the creation of 1,500 jobs within 15 years.
The Government recognise that this is a challenging time for all businesses and we have provided unprecedented levels of support to help businesses and workers through these difficult times. However, data for Great Yarmouth show a 4% positive difference between the birth and death rates of businesses in Great Yarmouth in 2021, an encouraging sign that businesses are flourishing in the local area and that the local Member of Parliament is being highly effective. Furthermore, 667 Great Yarmouth businesses have been supported by their local growth hub and other partners, and there are 3,585 SMEs in Great Yarmouth in total. Over the last six months, there has been a sharp rise in job postings—vacancies, in other words—in Great Yarmouth, from 1,004 job postings in November 2022 to 2,229 in May 2023. That is a 122% rise. These are the highest vacancy volumes since October 2012 and they illustrate the health of the Great Yarmouth economy and the excellent work and representation by its local Member of Parliament.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Amendments of the Law (Resolution of Silicon Valley Bank UK Limited) (No. 2) Order 2023
(1 year, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Griffith)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Amendments of the Law (Resolution of Silicon Valley Bank UK Limited) (No. 2) Order 2023.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. As hon. Members will be aware, Siliconâ Valley Bank UK Ltd—or SVB UK—was sold to HSBC on Monday 13 March. The aim of the sale was to ensure that customers of SVB UK could access their deposits and banking services as normal, limit risks to our tech and life sciences sector, and safeguard some of the UK’s most promising companies. We achieved those outcomes without any public money or Government guarantees. There was no bail-out; SVB UK was sold to a private sector purchaser. The solution was a win for taxpayers, customers and the stability of the banking system. The International Monetary Fund has said that the UK’s response to SVB UK restored market confidence and contributed to the UK’s upgraded growth forecast. It now expects the UK to avoid a recession this year.
On Monday 13 March, using powers under the Banking Act 2009, I laid in both Houses a statutory instrument to facilitate the sale of SVB UK to HSBC. That instrument, which has now been approved by both Houses, granted HSBC’s ringfenced bank an exemption so that it could provide liquidity on non-arm’s-length terms to SVB UK on an ongoing basis. That was needed to facilitate the sale of SVB UK to HSBC, because it ensured that HSBC could provide the necessary funds—over £2 billion in the days immediately afterwards—to its new subsidiary. The exemption also ensures that HSBC UK can provide liquidity to SVB UK as needed going forward.
This second statutory instrument provides an ongoing exemption from ringfencing requirements for SVB UK beyond the existing four-year transition period. That exemption is subject to conditions relating to the size of SVB UK’s core deposits and the type of business that it can undertake. The first condition is intended to ensure that SVB UK or its subsidiaries cannot hold core deposits, which are typically retail and small business deposits, above the existing threshold in the ringfencing regime, which is currently £25 billion.
The second and third conditions are intended to ensure that SVB UK or its subsidiaries will be allowed to undertake new business activities only if they are similar to those conducted by SVB UK at the time of the acquisition by HSBC. Those conditions are intended to ensure that the exemptions from the wider regime are limited to what is needed to facilitate the sale of SVB UK. Together, they minimise risks to financial stability and limit any competitive distortion.
Hon. Members will note that Sam Woods, deputy governor for prudential regulation and chief executive of the Prudential Regulation Authority, has confirmed the PRA’s support for the provisions in the draft order, in a letter that I have laid in the Library. There are copies in the Committee Room for Members. He states that the statutory instrument, with its conditions, supports
“the PRA’s primary statutory objective of safety and soundness, and limits competitive distortion.”
He also confirms that the PRA feels that it
“has a range of tools…to ensure the effective supervision of HSBC UK and SVB UK”.
In conclusion, the draft order, along with the previous exemption, is crucial to the purchase of SVB UK by HSBC. It protects taxpayers, depositors and the financial system. The UK has a world-leading tech sector with a dynamic start-up and scale-up ecosystem, and the Government are pleased that a private sector purchaser was found. I hope that hon. Members will join me in supporting the draft order.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I thank the Minister and his team for briefing me ahead of today’s debate. We welcome the quick work done by the Treasury, the Bank of England and regulators to secure the HSBC rescue deal for the UK arm of Silicon Valley Bank. SVB UK serves a high concentration of life sciences and tech companies in this country, and those firms play an indispensable role in driving growth and innovation across the economy. We recognise that granting an exemption to the ringfencing regime for HSBC was necessary to guarantee the sale of SVB UK in exceptional circumstances. That is why the Labour party will support the draft order.
I just want to ask the Minister a few questions. First, has he considered whether maintaining a special exemption for HSBC in the future represents the best long-term solution? Can he assure me that he and his officials, alongside the Bank of England, have considered all the alternative options now that the collapse of SVB UK has been averted? I recognise the specific circumstances of SVB UK, but does he agree that ringfencing reforms were introduced for good reasons, to protect savers and taxpayers from a banking crisis? Can the Minister reassure me that, beyond SVB UK, his Government are committed to the integrity of the ringfencing regime, and that regulation must prioritise the safety and soundness of our banks?
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The SNP will not oppose the draft order, but I would appreciate some clarification. We have to be up front that this is a controlled, measured and proportionate weakening of the consumer protection requirements that were put in place after the catastrophic financial crash 15 years ago.
In principle, we all support the position that there will be rare occasions when those consumer protection measures need to be weakened, and in some cases removed altogether for a short time in order to prevent even more serious harm that might have arisen had they been enforced. The Government’s argument is that the threatened collapse of Silicon Valley Bank UK Ltd was one such occasion. I do not think that anyone could argue with that, because we saw what happened in 2007 and 2008, when banks collapsed in a chaotic and uncontrolled way. In essence, the ringfencing requirements were introduced to try to prevent the situation arising ever again in which a bank was too big to be allowed to fail. The regime allows banks to fail in a way that causes as little damage as possible, and ideally none whatever, to the wider economy.
I do not think that there is any disagreement on the need for an exemption to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Ring-fenced Bodies and Core Activities) Order 2014, because that was clearly part of what was needed to prevent the bank from failing completely. I hope that the Minister will be able to persuade the Committee why that exemption needs to be made permanent, rather than applied for the usual four-year period. When the Amendments of the Law (Resolution of Silicon Valley Bank UK Limited) Order 2023 was debated on 27 March, the Minister effectively said that the exemption was necessary—I am paraphrasing his words—because HSBC needed to be allowed its new subsidiary. There was no publicly funded bail-out because HSBC had had to bail it out to the tune of over £2 billion at the time, and possibly a bit more since.
I am not clear why that exemption needs to be made permanent. Are we saying that the subsidiary, Silicon Valley Bank UK, will continue to need bail-outs beyond the four-year period? Remember that HSBC would not have bought it had it thought that it would be a permanent drain on its resources. I appreciate that there is a big difference between liquidity issues and profitability issues, but SVB UK certainly did not have profitability issues; it made quite a handsome profit in the last financial year for which it reported. At the time of the takeover, HSBC thought that it would make a gain of around £1.4 billion on the purchase. It has now scaled that back, and in the quarter 1 results published on 2 May this year it gave a value of just over $1.5 billion, as opposed to a similar number of pounds. For something that it paid £1 for, $1.5 billion is still not bad.
The Minister referred to the letter of 9 May from the chief executive officer of the Prudential Regulation Authority. He pointed to the explanatory memorandum, which makes it clear that the draft order is not intended to have any impact whatever on the PRA’s powers or how it uses them. He specifically mentioned section 55M of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which, along with some of the sections around it, gives the PRA extensive powers. Will the Minister clarify just how widespread the PRA’s powers are? For example, could the PRA use its unaffected powers to reinstate some of the ringfencing requirements without recourse to Parliament? If there is to be a reimposition of the ringfence, does that need to be approved by Parliament in the same way as the exemption was?
My key question is this: is there an expectation that Silicon Valley Bank UK will have liquidity issues that need support from its parent company more than four years after the takeover? If we do not expect that, why do we need this order?
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Ms McVey.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn that we should not contest the order, but I want the Minister to note a couple of things. The continual failure of banks hurts growing businesses that it is important we support. Will the Minister look to strengthen the PRA to ensure that there is sufficient depth to scrutinise banks and their savings? Will he look into the idea of a national development bank to help businesses and small start-ups to succeed?
Andrew Griffith
It is always a pleasure to respond to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn. I thank her and the hon. Member for Glenrothes for their support.
I reassure both Opposition spokespeople that the exemption was a necessary move in the eyes of the Bank of England, which conducted the process to seek an alternative buyer, of which the exemption was a necessary precondition. In this case, the introduction of a long-term exemption, as opposed to the time-limited exemption of four years in the existing legislation, will ensure that the outcome that I think we all seek—the continued flow of funds on an affordable basis, particularly to small businesses and start-ups—can happen on a commercial basis. That is the reason for the long-term exemption from the ringfence.
I assure Members that the exemption is an exception, and not just to the process. The fact that we have introduced this statutory instrument, thereby giving Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise the change, demonstrates the proper nature of the exception process; this is not being done simply by the exercise of a discretion on the part of any of the participants.
I also assure Members that the intention behind the ringfencing regime—the desire to reconcile the protection of consumers and the importance of the financial stability system with the ongoing viability of a healthy financial sector—continues to this day. The objectives remain exactly the same. We have put out a call for evidence on the long-term review and will publish our response to it in due course. We are taking the appropriate amount of time and I am always happy to consult Members so that we get it right. This is not something that we seek to rush and we certainly do not seek to deregulate for deregulation’s sake. We wish to regulate the balance of harm.
It is also the case that the provisions of the original 2014 order might not always be the optimal point on the envelope. For example, we are trying to ensure the flow of funds to small and medium-sized enterprises, which is perhaps a shared objective. As we seek to move forward on ringfencing, that is not to repudiate the original intention laid down by this House but to revisit some matters, many years down the road from the 2008 banking crisis and in a different environment—for example, this sale happened very quickly—so that we can look at the most effective remedies in a situation in which things can move much quicker.
I think I have broadly addressed most questions. As the hon. Member for Glenrothes observed, the PRA’s powers are wide and are not fettered, other than in respect of the long-term continuation of this particular ringfence. A monitoring regime that many would characterise as intrusive will apply to the SVB UK subsidiary, just as it will to HSBC. We should be reassured—this is broadly what the PRA chief executive said in his letter to me that has been laid before the House—that the PRA feels it has the necessary powers.
On the slightly out-of-scope point from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr about a national development bank—I understand that this was his opportunity to raise that important topic—we have made, as he will know, a number of interventions that support businesses at every point on the spectrum, from the good work done by the British Business Bank and its many different schemes to provide finance and liquidity, to the UK Infrastructure Bank, which has a specific remit in respect of net zero and levelling up. Rather than detain the Committee, let me say that I am always content to meet Members to explain the work we are doing and seek challenge if they would like us to look at additional work.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Education
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Gibb
Despite the shadow Minister’s grudging mention of a successful bid to the £450 million condition improvement fund announced yesterday, I congratulate Farringdon Community Academy in her constituency on its successful £1.5 million bid.
[Official Report, 23 May 2023, Vol. 733, c. 228.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for Schools, the right hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb):
An error has been identified in my response to the speech of the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson).
The correct information should have been:
Nick Gibb
Last December, I had the chance to visit Guiseley School in Yorkshire, where I saw for myself the transformative effect that the new, modern buildings being provided will make to the entire school community. That was under the school rebuilding programme.
[Official Report, 23 May 2023, Vol. 733, c. 230.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for Schools, the right hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb):
An error has been identified in my speech.
The correct information should have been:
Robert Halfon
I can also confirm that the constituency of the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) will be getting £1.8 million.
[Official Report, 23 May 2023, Vol. 733, c. 257.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon):
An error has been identified in my closing speech.
The correct information should have been:
Robert Halfon
I can also confirm that Gateshead local authority, where the constituency of the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) is, will be getting £1.8 million.
Justice
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
On her specific point, what I think is exciting and heartening about the Bill is that it contains a duty on the Secretary of State and police and crime commissioners not just to promote awareness of the code —important though that is—but to promote compliance. If there is not compliance, there is also a duty, effectively, to publish that, so that it is plain for everyone to see. The local PCC will be publishing that, which means that the hon. Lady can get some accountability.
[Official Report, 15 May 2023, Vol. 732, c. 586.]
Letter of correction from the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. and learned Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk):
An error has been identified in the response given to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) during the Second Reading debate on the Victims and Prisoners Bill. The correct response should have been:
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
On her specific point, what I think is exciting and heartening about the Bill is that it contains a duty on the Secretary of State and criminal justice bodies not just to promote awareness of the code—important though that is—but to promote compliance. If there is not compliance, there is also a duty, effectively, to publish that, so that it is plain for everyone to see. The Secretary of State will be publishing that, which means that the hon. Lady can get some accountability.
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
Iran
(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
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government policy on Iran.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, as always. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I am grateful to have secured the time for this important debate. In a dangerous and complicated world, Iran presents one of the most immediate threats to the UK’s national interest and domestic security, but for too long the international community has taken a short-sighted and, I believe, misguided approach to the fundamentalist regime in Tehran. That has led to an emboldened Iran flagrantly violating the 2015 joint comprehensive plan of action nuclear deal, expanding its regional influence and support for terrorism, and committing human rights abuses against its own citizens with impunity.
The collective failure in policy on Iran over the past decade or so is exemplified by the Biden Administration’s ongoing efforts to separate Iran policy into different areas—human rights abuses, the nuclear programme, ballistic missiles and support for terrorism—regardless of how interlinked they all are. History has shown that those policy areas can only ever be dealt with as a whole, and it is my contention that the failed approach is no longer tenable, and that the UK should take the opportunity to pursue an independent Iran policy and steer our own ship.
We need to be frank about the nuclear programme: Iran has never been closer to developing a nuclear weapon, and the JCPOA has comprehensively failed to halt Iran’s nuclear advances. Iran has been overtly breaching the JCPOA since May 2019, and even produced uranium enriched to a purity of 83.7%, which is a small technical step from the 90% threshold required for a nuclear weapon.
The country has accumulated enough uranium enriched to 20% and 60% purity that it could produce at least two nuclear bombs within months. Those levels are grossly in excess of the 3.67% permitted by the JCPOA and the level required for a legitimate peaceful civil nuclear programme. The UK Government have rightly likened the JCPOA to a hollow shell, but the US-led diplomatic efforts seek a so-called partial nuclear deal, after the US abandoned its wishful desire to secure a longer, stronger JCPOA.
Reports suggest that the Biden Administration’s partial deal would permit Iran to enrich uranium to 60%. That is concerning enough, but it stands to be compounded by significant sanctions relief. The US and South Korea are understood to be discussing ways to release $7 billion in Iranian funds held by Seoul, and an additional $10 billion held in Iraq might be on the table. Not only would Iran face no penalty for breaching the agreement; it would be permitted to remain mere months from possessing a nuclear weapon. It would also enjoy the benefits of a desperately needed economic boost.
Many colleagues in the House will share my grave concern about those developments and recognise the implications for existing and future international agreements, which apparently can be violated without consequence. Will the Minister provide an update on what discussions he has had with the Biden Administration on their efforts to secure a partial nuclear deal? Will he explain how Iran’s status as a threshold nuclear state aligns with our long-standing and crucial policy of preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon?
On sanctions, Iran’s systematic non-compliance necessitates a full snapback of sanctions in accordance with United Nations Security Council resolution 2231, which at this late stage is one of the few remaining diplomatic tools. It must be remembered that Iran has historically been acutely sensitive to sanctions. The UK must take a decisive, independent approach to secure the snapback. The UK has the power legitimately to trigger the snapback mechanism, and in doing so would demonstrate that when we sign agreements, they are worth more than the paper they are written on. Will the Minister explain the UK position on that, and say what steps we would take to initiate that last-resort mechanism?
Iran has the largest and most diverse ballistic missile capability in the middle east. In defiance of UN resolutions it has continued to develop and test advanced missiles capable of delivering a nuclear payload over thousands of miles. Iran is now openly using those weapons in conflict and has even killed a US national in recent years, yet the threshold for Iran’s use of force continues to drop due to an apparent lapse in western resolve.
In October this year the situation will become much worse as current restrictions placed on Iran’s development and transfer of missiles and missile tech will lapse in accordance with a sunsetting UN resolution and the JCPOA’s annex II. The mosaic of organisations set to be delisted covers the who’s who of Iran’s ballistic missile programme, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Al-Ghadir Missile Command and Aerospace Force, as well as Iran’s Ministry of Defence and Armed Forces Logistics.
Can we imagine a world where Iran is legally able to provide President Putin with ballistic missiles for his murderous attack on Ukraine? At a time when the UK and the EU are stepping up on drone sanctions and human rights sanctions, we risk taking our eye off a much more lethal threat. Again, the UK can play a decisive role here. Thanks to Brexit and our newly acquired autonomous sanctions capabilities, the UK has more room to act in this space than the EU. I call on the Government to ensure the UK leads the way by not delisting those entities, and by building a coalition with our allies in Europe to follow suit.
Sir Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He touched on an important point about the flow of weapons going from Iran into Ukraine. We need to do more to plug that flow or we will undermine all our other efforts to support Ukraine. Swift action is needed. It is important to lead the way, as we have continuously done in terms of the war in Ukraine.
Brendan Clarke-Smith
I thank my right hon. Friend for his point. He has hit the nail on the head. There are knock-on effects as Iran’s missiles have the potential to interfere in other conflicts, and that is so damaging and undermines what we are all trying to do. This House has been very much united in supporting Ukraine, so he is right in what he says.
Iran’s egregious human rights abuses also necessitate a robust policy response. My constituents were disgusted by the graphic footage of regime forces brutally suppressing protesters seeking the sorts of basic freedoms that we all take for granted. The UK has responded well to Iran’s many abuses. I applaud the Foreign Secretary’s leadership in introducing comprehensive and ever-growing lists of sanctions against organisations and individuals responsible for the suffering of ordinary Iranians.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
Two Iranian grandmothers were recently sentenced to 10 years in prison simply for being Baha’is. They had not long ago already served 10 years for the same reason. Will my hon. Friend join me in standing firm in the UK’s opposition to such sentences, particularly the use of blasphemy and apostasy laws, which can involve the execution of individuals in Iran simply on account of what they believe?
Brendan Clarke-Smith
My hon. Friend is right. We must do everything we can, in Iran or elsewhere, to protect religious minorities and everyday citizens against appalling abuses. She gives a fine example of the kind of thing we are dealing with. She certainly has my full support and I thank her for her personal efforts; I know this is an issue that she is passionate about and works very hard on.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
The human rights abuses extend to women and girls and also the LGBT community. Since 1979, between 4,000 and 6,000 members of the LGBT community have been executed. Does my hon. Friend see that as a cause for concern?
Brendan Clarke-Smith
My hon. Friend is completely right. That is something that people in this and many other countries would be horrified by. The community has suffered for many years and Iran in particular has a disgraceful record this this respect. Not just in Iran but around the world the UK has an important role to play in promoting LGBT rights and ensuring that everybody enjoys the same rights that we enjoy in this country. There is still a long way to go, even in this country, in what we can do to support people, but in Iran there is a huge problem. I thank him for his point; he is spot on.
Fiona Bruce
We also hear of the death penalty being used to execute young people for crimes committed when they were below the age of 18. Will my hon. Friend join me in calling on the Iranian authorities to honour their international human rights obligations, and immediately halt all executions of juvenile offenders and commute all death sentences?
Brendan Clarke-Smith
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in that call. Regardless of people’s views on the death penalty, everyone should have a free and fair trial and no civilised country can accept a minor found guilty of a crime being made to pay the ultimate penalty. We must also push against the treatment of citizens who have been subject to the death penalty without fair due process—a point to which I will return.
The regime’s appalling treatment of its own citizens speaks volumes. We must act, as an ongoing warning that the Republic cannot be trusted and must not be treated as an equal in any sort of negotiations. Lest we forget, the JCPOA’s failure to address Iran’s human rights abuses speaks to the failure of the compartmentalised approach to Iran policy from which we must break free. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is Iran’s foremost practitioner of human rights abuses, and it is deeply regrettable that we have not acted decisively against the organisation by proscribing it in its entirety. We must be unambiguous. All of Iran’s malign activity is underwritten by the IRGC and its elite Quds Force. It is directly instigating conflicts around the world through its funding, arming and training of countless terror groups, many of which are proscribed in the UK for very good reason.
The IRGC is also reaping great financial rewards from its deep involvement in the international drugs trade, with a particular presence in South America. The dangerous captagon drug trade—much of which is centred in Syria, thanks to Iran’s control of the country—is now entering Europe, posing a profound policy challenge to the entire continent; it is no longer possible to dismiss the IRGC as a distant threat. The people of Ukraine know better than anyone what happens when the Iranian regime is left unchecked. IRGC-supplied suicide drones have wrought terror across Ukraine and brought the Iranian threat into the heart of Europe, making Iran directly complicit in President Putin’s hideous war crimes.
The IRGC’s charge sheet for its publicly documented activities against the UK is grave and growing: 15 planned terror assassinations in the UK have been foiled by MI5 since 2022; British civilians have been killed around the world, as have UK armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan; an attempted bomb attack on British MPs in Paris a few years ago; the radicalising of British citizens in the UK using a network of religious centres, one of which is undergoing an active Charity Commission inquiry; the use of British crime gangs to gather information for terror attacks in the UK; attempted attacks on a London-based Iranian news channel, harming freedom of the press in this country; and cyber-attacks against UK critical national infrastructure and this place.
The House of Commons has already voted unanimously to call on the Government to ban the IRGC, so the question now is: what are we waiting for? In the vacuum, IRGC activities have expanded and concerns are growing across the UK. Back home, millions of Iranians are fighting the pernicious IRGC in their ongoing and life-threatening efforts to secure greater freedoms. But such efforts are by no means limited to Iran. Here in the UK, one man—Mr Vahid Beheshti—has exemplified the courage and commitment of Iranians in standing against the IRGC.
I commend the Vahid’s bravery in his extraordinary 72-day hunger strike outside the Foreign Office, which resulted in him having to spend two weeks in hospital due to ill health. I was heartened by Mr Beheshti’s release from hospital and applaud his strength as well as that of his wife, Councillor Mattie Heaven. Undeterred, the sitting by Vahid and his many supporters continues outside the Foreign Office and has now surpassed an extraordinary 100 days, but this remarkable self-sacrifice has only been necessitated by our inaction and failure to proscribe the IRGC in its entirety. During the hunger strike, Mr Beheshti’s campaign for proscription received an unprecedented volume of cross-party support, and it was an honour to join 125 of my colleagues from all corners of Parliament in writing to the Prime Minister in solidarity with Mr Beheshti. It is hard to think of an issue that has received such broad parliamentary support.
Sanctioning the IRGC in its entirety is a welcome step, but I am afraid it fails to adequately reflect the extent of the threat posed by the Islamic Republic’s brutal enforcers. Today, I reiterate the call of so many by again urging the Government to proscribe the IRGC in its entirety. Reports suggest that the UK has come under pressure from the Biden Administration over the question of proscription, which jars with their active decision not to delist the organisation from their own proscription list. The UK Government must pay no heed to these overtures and instead put our national security interests first.
The UK should show its commitment to rooting out Iran’s support for terrorism by proscribing the IRGC and leading essential international efforts to end its financing of terror surrogates. There is clearly support for this landmark step within Government, and I particularly applaud the Minister for Security, who has done so much to raise public awareness of the dangers of IRGC activity within the UK. I also note that the Prime Minister has previously said that IRGC proscription
“must now be on the table”,
and he vowed unequivocally in December last year that he would utilise
“the full range of tools at our disposal to protect UK citizens from the threat of the IRGC”.
It all begs the question, if not now, when?
This is by no means the first debate in this place on the urgent need to respond to Iran’s malign activities across the world, and I dare say it will not be the last. It is hard to escape the assessment that Iran, emboldened by the absence of IRGC proscription and a snapback of biting sanctions in response to its nuclear transgressions, has systematically escalated its deplorable efforts to export bloodshed and instability. The Iranian regime is ruthlessly holding the threat of terrorism and its expanding missile capabilities over our heads. There is a real risk that the UK and our western allies will become the agents of Iran’s deterrence here.
US-led policy towards Iran has been shown as ineffective and, in many cases, harmful to UK national interest. A clear-eyed analysis of Iran’s behaviour and activities means that the UK-Iran relationship cannot simply continue as business as usual. It is time we pursued a robust, independent approach. We have rightly led the way in defending Ukraine against unprovoked attacks, and I applaud the Government’s relentless commitment to sanctioning Russia. Now, let us take the same principled approach in our Iran policy and lead from the front.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
Order. Six Members have indicated that they would like to speak, which gives each of them about seven minutes. That is on a voluntary basis, but it would be helpful if Members followed that guideline.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith) on securing this important and timely debate.
As we have heard many times in and outside the Chamber, the Iranian regime’s latest wave of homicidal attacks on its own people began in September last year after the murder of Mahsa Amini by the Iranian police. Since the crackdown against the subsequent protests began, more than 500 people have been killed, more than 50 people have been executed and at least 20,000 have been detained. Those are rough figures; they are probably an underestimate of what has actually happened, for obvious reasons.
At the apex of every brutal activity perpetrated by the Tehran regime is the IRGC, as the hon. Member said. It is a worldwide operation, and let us be clear what we are dealing with: the clerical fascists and homicidal maniacs who run Iran, and their monstrous servants in the IRGC, are effectively the modern-day version of the Nazis. If they had been around in 1939, they would have been advocating declaring war, but they would have been on the other side, not the side of the allies. They want to wipe Israel off the face of the planet, they want to murder Jewish people and gay men and women, and they want to take women as a whole back to the stone age. They are doing their best to do that not only in Iran, but elsewhere.
That repellent view of the world also applies to Tehran’s proxies. We are dealing not just with Hezbollah and Hamas, as bad as they are, but with the criminal gangs to which the hon. Member referred. They operate in this country, across Europe, in North America and elsewhere. That terrorist and criminal network poses a clear threat, way beyond Iran and the middle east.
I would have thought that the very least the Government—indeed, any democratic Government—could do is proscribe the IRGC in its entirety, as the hon. Member said. What perplexes me is that I and many other Members on both sides of the House have raised this issue repeatedly on the Floor of the House of Commons. I have a lot of respect for the Minister, but I have heard Minister after Minister expressing sympathy with full proscription at the Dispatch Box, and then nothing happens. That leads me and Members on both sides of the House to the conclusion that FCDO and Home Office Ministers sympathise with the idea of proscription, but that somebody in Downing Street, the FCDO or the Home Office is blocking it. I for one cannot see the rationale behind failing to proscribe the IRGC.
Sir Gavin Williamson
Does the hon. Gentleman think that there are certain similarities with the reluctance to proscribe the political wing of Hezbollah? There is a lot of political will to make that proscription happen, but there seems to be a reluctance within the FCDO. Are there not parallels with the IRGC there?
John Cryer
That is probably true. The rationale is normally that elements at the heart of Government say, “We still have to talk to these people.” Well, actually, they do not need to communicate with them. We are talking about Nazi terrorists, not a rational organisation. The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point.
I believe strongly that no Member of this House or of the House of Lords should have any relationship whatever with any arm of the Iranian state. Anybody who has been elected to the House of Commons or sits in the House of Lords and who has a relationship, particularly a pecuniary one, with Press TV—I think we all know what I am talking about—should look in the mirror and ask themselves why they are taking money from fascists.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. As leader of the UK delegation to the Council of Europe, I have a great deal of respect for the European Court of Human Rights and for the liberties—our liberties—that it defends, but those liberties continue to be fundamentally challenged in the dark authoritarian corners of our shared international community, and no more so than in Iran.
Iran’s human rights abuses are well documented, and we have discussed some of them. They make for disturbing reading. Never in the Islamic Republic’s 44-year brutal reign has it faced such widespread and far-reaching calls for freedom. The country has been rocked by the largest and most diverse protests yet. By December, an estimated 516 Iranian civilians had been killed by the regime as a result of egregious and brutal crackdowns on freedom of expression, contributing to the almost 600 executions that had been reported over 2022—the highest figure since 2015. Many were peaceful protesters killed with live ammunition and buried in unmarked graves without their families receiving notification. One particularly heinous tactic that the regime is using is chemical attacks, which it unleashed against a reported 91 girls’ schools from November 2022 to March 2023, leaving hundreds hospitalised. I ask the Minister what assessment has been made of those sickening attacks.
Iran’s state-endorsed summary executions and the ever-tightening screw on the rights of women and girls point to crimes against humanity. Tehran even recognises that its treatment of women and girls diverges significantly from the freedoms that women enjoy in the west, which Iran’s Supreme Leader declared in 2017 to be a
“Zionist plot to destroy human community”.
That would be laughable if it were not so horrific for the girls living there. What more can the Minister’s Department do to support the rights of Iranian women and children suffering under the tyranny of Tehran?
Iran’s suppression of the press is no less ruthless, leading to its being ranked 177th out of 179 nations in the 2023 world press freedom index. For their coverage of Amini’s brutal murder, two journalists, Elaheh Mohammadi and Niloofar Hamedi, have been accused of colluding with hostile powers, a charge that carries the death penalty under Iran’s Islamic law. In October, the IRGC accused the two of working for the CIA. Mohammadi’s lawyers have reportedly been denied the chance to defend her. We must call for their trials to be held in public, not behind closed doors where the regime has so often delivered corrupt verdicts with impunity.
Documents obtained from its official business registry show that in order to control its desperate population, Tehran has turned to Chinese face recognition surveillance technology. What steps can be taken to ensure that China does not export that technology to Iran? Will the Minister commit to providing ordinary Iranians with the software to gain internet access and protect journalistic autonomy? We must ensure that they do, whether overtly or covertly.
The treatment of Iran’s LGBT community is reprehensible, even entailing the risk of hanging sentences designed for maximum suffering and intimidation. Human rights groups claim that, since 1979, between 4,000 and 6,000 gay people have been executed. I am confident that the Minister will agree that the Government must do more to ensure that all people should be free to love who they wish, and that they will jointly inquire whether the LGBT rights organisations that the Government are empowering to assist in giving asylum to and strengthening Iran’s LGBT community can be strengthened even further.
The buck for all this stops with President Ebrahim Raisi and Supreme Leader Khamenei. What good are sanctions if the regime’s two most powerful despots are exempt? The Government must prove to ordinary Iranians that we are prepared to hold their tyrants accountable through targeted and personal sanctions. That is the only way we can fulfil our commitment to fundamental human rights, for the rule of law must be the ethos of a global Britain, unafraid to stand up for the individual and proud to lead our allies in the pursuit of justice.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith) for securing this morning’s debate.
Like most people, I was appalled by the shocking death of Mahsa Amini last year at the hands of the Iranian authorities. The brutal crackdown that has followed, which has left hundreds dead, raises urgent questions about what more can be done to support the Iranian people. In recent months, my office has been contacted by countless constituents concerned about the deteriorating human rights situation in Iran. Among the issues that they have raised are the persecution of women, the right to freedom of religion or belief, and the continued detention of British citizens. Even before the terrible scenes last year, the British Government’s report on human rights and democracy found that women in Iran were
“unable to participate fully in society.”
The crackdown that followed the death of Mahsa Amini has seen brutality against women and girls taken to new levels, including the possible use of gas poisonings by the regime to intimidate female students and to force schools to shut. Members across the House welcomed the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and Anoosheh Ashoori last year, but the regime continues to arbitrarily detain other British nationals, including Morad Tahbaz and Mehran Raoof, and we should not forget the execution of dual British-Iranian Alireza Akbari earlier this year.
There are two areas that I would like the Minister to address. First, I called on the Government earlier this year to help to prevent the closure of BBC Persian Radio by providing emergency funding similar to the funding provided last year for the BBC World Service in Ukraine. Access to free and independent media is a vital tool for the Iranian people in helping to counter the disinformation of the regime, so my first ask is that the Government reconsider their position on BBC Persian Radio—or a version of it, given that it has now closed.
Secondly, I echo calls for the Government to stop prevaricating and proscribe the IRGC as the terrorist organisation that we all know it is. As the Foreign Affairs Committee has said, it would be a logical extension of the existing restrictions on IRGC members and would help to send an unequivocal message to the regime that the malign activities of the group will not be tolerated. These measures would strengthen UK policy towards Iran and help to challenge the actions of the regime at home and abroad.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith) on securing this crucial debate, because the Iranian regime represents a troubling international challenge that requires urgent attention from the United Kingdom. I am grateful that Members across the House are in attendance this morning and that we have the opportunity to press the Minister on these important matters.
I am concerned that for some years the UK’s policy towards Iran has been largely incoherent, with no clear strategy in place to address concerns on the international stage or, indeed, domestically in Iran. The sanctions on individuals involved in the violent crackdown on protesters following the death of Mahsa Amini in September last year have had a limited impact on the situation on the ground in Iran. As of June 2023, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) said, more than 500 protesters have been killed and as many as 20,000 have been arrested, although those figures are likely to be underestimates.
The regime has largely been able to suppress protest through strict censorship, through the enforcement of internet blackouts and through police brutality, so my first question to the Minister is what assessment the Foreign Office has made of the impact of the sanctions currently in place. Is the Department now considering employing the UK’s Magnitsky-style sanctions, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) has called for?
John Howell
I applaud what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I wonder whether he has picked up on the role that Iran is playing in the dispute between Azerbaijan and Armenia. We are moving to a conclusion of that in favour of both countries—a peaceful settlement—but Iran seems to be out to spoil it and to make a big play of the situation.
Andrew Gwynne
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The problem is that Iran is a disruptive force in large parts of the globe; it seeks to destabilise and undermine political deals bringing countries together. He makes a very sound case about what is happening in that part of the world.
The picture internationally is no less grave. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a branch of the Iranian military, has never been more powerful. Indeed, it is perhaps an understatement to refer to the IRGC as a branch; Reuters has called it an industrial empire, and it is estimated that anywhere between 10% and 50% of the Iranian economy is controlled through the IRGC’s subsidiaries and trusts. The IRGC has been linked to terror attacks, hostage takings, assassinations, human rights violations and the intimidation of journalists and critics across the globe, including here in the United Kingdom. From Yemen to Lebanon, from Iraq to Israel, and from Syria to Saudi Arabia, Iran has waged an ideological war against peace and stability—the very point that the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) was making. The IRGC provides financial support to several terrorist groups, including Hezbollah, Hamas and the Taliban.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. I have a lot of sympathy with him about the proscription of the IRGC; he is right to describe it as a global problem. Would he not contend that it would be a mistake to think that Iran is not a rational actor in the world? The regime is not an irrational actor in the world. I make that point because it is very important that we work with allies across Europe and around the world to deal with this problem, particularly around such things as the relationship between the IRGC and money laundering, and its financial reach around the globe.
Andrew Gwynne
The hon. Gentleman is right that we cannot do this alone: we have to work with allies and, because of the global reach of the IRGC, he is absolutely right that we must have a global approach as well. The point is that the involvement of the IRGC in other terrorist groups, particularly in the middle east, is to further Iranian foreign policy goals. It is a major barrier to peace across the middle east, including to a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
The IRGC’s commander, General Hossein Salami, has stated his intention to erase Israel from the global political map, something that is particularly concerning given the creation of IRGC proxy-controlled territory in Syria and Lebanon. Despite calls across the House, and despite the serious threat that the IRGC poses domestically and internationally, the British Government have so far resisted calls to proscribe it as a terrorist organisation. I have raised the matter in the House on a number of occasions, and have been told time and again by the Foreign Secretary that the UK does not “discuss or speculate about future proscriptions”.
I hope that the Minister can provide more clarity today. I am not asking him to “discuss or speculate”, but to signal to us that the Government appreciate the concern of Members across the Chamber about this issue and will strongly consider the points raised here. It was reported in January that the Government planned to proscribe the IRGC imminently, but nothing materialised. This is a matter of urgency, and I cannot fathom why the Government are not acting more swiftly to proscribe this dangerous organisation in its entirety.
Over the past six months there have been several developments in the middle east region that strengthen the hand of the Iranian regime. They include rapprochement with Saudi Arabia and the readmittance of its Syrian ally to the Arab League, which is all happening in parallel to the United States’ gradual withdrawal from the region. The Iranian regime is already one of the biggest supporters of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and is one of the few countries in the world openly supporting Russia with attack drones.
Since 2015, the regime has almost entirely violated the terms of its nuclear arms deal, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory. Despite its responsibilities as a signatory, Britain has given no indication of how it plans to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions in the absence of a renewed deal. Of most concern is the fact that the provisions in the agreement restricting the development of Iran’s ballistic missile programme will expire in October. We must not allow these sanctions to lapse. Put simply, the threat is growing both regionally and across the globe, and the United Kingdom must develop a robust and coherent policy on Iran as a matter of the utmost urgency.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith) on securing the debate. It is always encouraging to see Government Back Benchers making use of Westminster Hall to hold Ministers to account. There was a very well attended debate on Iran in the Chamber in January scheduled by the Backbench Business Committee. This has been a useful opportunity, six months down the line, to review the situation. A clear consensus is emerging among Members from all sides of the House.
Many other emergencies and crises flare up around the world and demand our immediate attention. The situation in Sudan is a clear recent example. Just because other crises have dropped down the news agenda does not mean that they are any less critical or cause any less distress to those on the ground. That is particularly true of Iran, as we have heard today.
On a daily basis, the regime continues to persecute and oppress far too many of its citizens. The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) spoke very powerfully about the oppression of the LGBT community, and women of course face an enforced dress code, the enforcement of the hijab, and restrictions on the right to work and their freedom of movement. The UN’s working group on arbitrary detention has concluded that there is a “systemic” problem with arbitrary detention in Iran that
“amounts to a serious violation of international law.”
At least seven people who participated in the anti-Government protests last year have been executed since January, including three last month.
Yet still the cry for “Zan, Zendegi, Azadi”—women, life, freedom—rings out on the streets of Tehran and across the country. The determination of the protesters has been inspiring, as has the solidarity expressed by so many communities and individuals around the world, not least constituents in Glasgow North, who regularly contact me to express their concern about human rights in Iran and their support for people campaigning for democracy and change.
Some of those constituents, of course, are Iranian themselves and have come here seeking safety and refuge, while still heart-sick with worry about their friends and family who remain in Iran. They look to the UK Government for action, and sadly, in too many areas, they find it lacking. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps continues to act with impunity both within and outside Iran’s borders. There has been plenty of evidence—we have already heard some of it—of the IRGC operating on UK soil. Yet we still wait, as almost every hon. Member has said, for the UK Government to follow the United States in proscribing the group and declaring it a terrorist organisation. That action would allow law enforcement authorities to take action and ensure that no officials or individuals guilty of human rights violations through that group can evade justice.
The Government also need to step up their action on UK-Iranian dual nationals who have been arbitrarily detained in Iran. As others have said, the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe after so many years was a joy and relief, but Morad Tahbaz, Mehran Raoof and others still remain in prison with uncertain futures.
The Government must work with international allies to address Iran’s growing determination to influence hostile activity in the wider region and, indeed, around the world. Iran provides weapons to groups that provoke conflict in the wider middle east and is now recognised by the US National Security Council as one of the top military backers of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It acts with increasing impunity on its nuclear programme—reports in recent days suggest that a new mountain storage facility is being created for its military arsenal—and the development of hypersonic missile systems that could bypass the existing air defences of other countries in the region.
Is it any wonder, therefore, that the regime’s behaviour towards its own citizens and the wider world results in so many people from Iran wanting to seek refuge elsewhere? And yes, they include thousands of people who have arrived here on small boats in recent of years, hundreds of whom have been referred for assessment under modern slavery legislation. But the Government want to make those people—men, women and children who are fleeing the oppression that we have heard about repeatedly in today’s debate and who are seeking to join friends or family, or perhaps speak English but not French or German—criminals. They want to tell them that they are not welcome; they want to deport them to Rwanda. Some hon. Members will have heard me say this yesterday, because that is also the Government’s attitude to people who arrive here from Afghanistan.
How can the Minister, or any Minister from this Government, get up in a debate such as this and condemn Iran’s or any other regime’s human rights record, when the UK Government want to criminalise people for seeking asylum, which is a fundamental human right? There is no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker. If the UK Government want to stop people coming here on small boats from Iran, they need to establish safe and legal routes that would allow people to arrive by regular means and, more importantly, they need to promote the rights of women, life and freedom in Iran. They need to be prepared for the day when democracy begins to prevail, and ensure that, when that day comes, they are able to offer whatever help and support might be asked for. That probably means finding money from an already stretched aid budget and perhaps rethinking the cut from 0.7%.
There is no question about the solidarity among hon. Members in today’s debate or among our constituents with the protesters and ordinary folk in Iran who want to see freedom, democracy and respect for human rights. There are practical actions that the UK Government can take but have not yet. If and when they do, they will have our support; until then, debates such as this will continue to hold them to account.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith) on securing this important debate.
Many different communities have made their homes in my constituency of Richmond Park after escaping oppressive regimes. I am the proud parliamentary representative of a large Tamil community who came here from Sri Lanka several decades ago and, in the south-eastern corner of my constituency, New Malden hosts the largest community of North Koreans in Europe. More recently, we have been glad to welcome any Hongkongers.
However, when I looked at my constituency’s census data earlier this year, I was surprised by just how many Iranians I represent, and I wondered why they had not been as visible a community as others. I made it my businesses to reach out to my Iranian constituents and to better understand their concerns. Last week, I met a number of them in Diba, a Persian restaurant in central Richmond, to discuss the situation in Iran and the UK Government’s response. I pay tribute to the many British-Iranians working tirelessly to shine a light on the abuses being perpetrated by the regime and thank those constituents who took the time to share their concerns with me.
It is almost surreal to imagine the daily struggle that Iranian people face. Simple things that we take for granted in Britain are now distant memories to most Iranians. Young girls are being deprived of an education out of fear that they will be poisoned if they go to school. Journalists and lawyers are being thrown into jail and sentenced to lashings without fair trial. Thousands of people are executed every month for defending their freedom. Women are unable to dress as they wish, travel as they wish or spend their time as they wish; all the things that bring joy to life are being wiped from Iranian existence. I was particularly struck by one of my constituents who described the current regime as a “coup”—a sort of foreign entity that in no way represents the culture of values of the Iranian people but which has occupied their country and stolen their freedoms. It is a force that acts to suppress and control its citizens through fear.
The Iranian people have stood up and spoked out against the evil forces of the Iranian regime and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in particular. The IRGC not only exerts terror on the Iranian people but props up a network of terrorist groups across the middle east, spreading war and violence across the region. The Foreign Affairs Committee and hon. Members from across the House, within this debate and in other forums, have called for the IRGC to be finally designated as a terrorist organisation. The Liberal Democrats support that case.
In January this year, it was reported widely that the UK Government would review the case for proscription but, five months later, no progress has been made. The Prime Minister even said that there was a case for proscribing the IRGC during the Conservative leadership election last summer, as other Members have in this debate. Will the Minister update us on why it is taking such a long time? It is a crucial point that my constituents made to me.
We must remember that it is not just in Iran that people live in fear. The terror of the Iranian regime extends beyond the country’s borders and right to our doorstep here in the UK, a point that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw made most profoundly. I have heard at first hand from my constituents about physical threats made to British-Iranians residing in London. The UK Government simply cannot stand by and allow this to happen. Will the Minister take urgent action to protect the safety of British citizens and Iranian nationals based in the UK? In addition to proscribing the IRGC, we need more proactive investigations of individuals in the UK who may be connected to the Iranian regime, including family members of Iranian officials who we have sanctioned. Some are based in this country, living the high life on the back of stolen wealth like the Russian nationals we are familiar with already. I urge the Government to heed the call of Anoosheh Ashoori and ensure that our Magnitsky sanctions regime is properly deployed against those individuals.
Sanctions are a frequently pulled foreign policy lever, and I welcome those imposed by the UK Government on individuals connected to the Iranian regime, including members of the IRGC. However, sanctions imposed by other countries, including the United States, have had a significant impact on my constituents’ ability to access funds from their Iranian bank accounts. They are unable to send money to friends and relatives in Iran or to support Iranian non-governmental organisations carrying out vital humanitarian work as the Iranian economy collapses.
I have also spoken to several constituents who have had transactions blocked or their UK bank accounts closed down entirely without reason. One of my constituents has had all her bank accounts suspended by NatWest without any warning or explanation, leaving her entirely cut off from her money. I would welcome comment from the Minister on whether the Government can provide any support to British Iranians who are currently unable to access their funds.
The ongoing deterioration of the humanitarian situation in Iran has unsurprisingly led to an increase in Iranians seeking refuge outside their home country. I have been in touch with some of the asylum seekers who are currently living in a hotel in my constituency, around a third of whom have travelled here from Iran. Thanks to the continuing dysfunction in the Home Office, these Iranians could wait years for their applications to be processed. The Liberal Democrats call on the Government to work with international partners to set up safe and legal routes, particularly for Iranian women fleeing persecution. We simply cannot turn our backs on these vulnerable women.
It is high time that the UK Government took substantial action to support the Iranian people’s fight. Having spoken to my Iranian constituents, I now understand that more than any other group of people who have sought sanctuary in Britain, they continue to live in fear of the regime that they have fled from. Their voices have been suppressed by the activities of the IRGC in this country, which we must address urgently. The Iranian community here have so much to contribute to this country. They are highly educated, and have an extraordinary wealth of culture and heritage to share with us, but, like the women and girls residing in Iran, it is kept hidden away by this oppressive regime.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s contribution to this debate and I hope that it will provide some desperately needed answers. At the very least, we must support the British Iranian families in this country and listen to what they are urging us to do, which includes the proscription of the IRGC as well as putting an end to threats to individuals residing in our country by the Iranian regime.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
We now move on to the Front Benchers, who have 10 minutes each as a minimum, although there is a bit of flexibility. Then, whatever time is left at the end of their contributions will be extra time for the Minister to respond in, which I am sure he will welcome.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, and I thank the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith) for securing this debate today. His contribution to it was eloquent, insightful and detailed, which I appreciated.
The UK and Iran have had a long, complex and often difficult relationship, stretching back over several centuries, let alone decades. As the 17th largest country in the world both by size and population, which is located at a strategic intersection between the Arab, Turkish, Russian and Indian worlds, Iran as a nation has always had significant influence beyond its borders, both regionally and throughout the wider world.
For the past 44 years, the Islamic Republic of Iran has operated a regime of oppression, internally and externally. As that oppression continues and even escalates, it is important that the UK Government proactively challenge the threat that Iran poses to universal human rights, as well as to regional and global stability. I begin my contribution today by stating that the Scottish National party stands in full solidarity with Iranian women, men and young people calling for democratic change. The bravery of Iranian citizens who stand up against brutality and dictatorship is beyond inspiring, and we in the SNP echo their rallying cry of “Zan, Zendegi, Azadi”— “Women, Life, Freedom”.
Last year, Iran catapulted to the top of international news cycles when mass anti-Government protests rocked the country. The springboard for the recent attention on Iran was the killing of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini at the hands of the Iranian regime. Detained by Iran’s notorious “morality police” for allegedly wearing her hijab too loosely, she was beaten and tortured, which led to her falling into a coma in police custody and later dying in hospital. This was state-sanctioned femicide of a young Kurdish woman. Her brutal murder, carried out by the Iranian regime, sparked outrage and protest across Iran, resulting in the largest anti-Government protest movement in the country in years.
Tragically, the Iranian state has responded in a predictably vicious fashion. Iranian forces have been targeting women at anti-regime protests with shotgun fire to their faces, breasts and genitals, according to interviews with medics across the country. Just like the femicide of Mahsa Amini, which sparked the protests, these attacks could not be more gendered.
Over 500 people were killed during the protests, including 16-year-old Nika Shakarami, who was videoed while standing on and burning a headscarf as part of an anti-Government protest. She subsequently disappeared, having been chased by the police, and was eventually located in a mortuary 10 days after she went missing.
At least 19,000 protesters were detained, with the first death sentence imposed on one of them by an Iranian court coming in November 2022. The UN’s independent international fact-finding mission to Iran has cited reports of unfair proceedings and said that some of those who have been executed had been subject to torture or other forms of mistreatment. This year, conservative estimates suggest that Iran has executed 209 people, mostly for drug offences, although that number is probably far lower than the reality. Many of those executions have been public hangings using cranes. Indeed, some people have been punished by the removal of limbs or by being blinded.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, said:
“The weaponisation of criminal procedures to punish people for exercising their basic rights—such as those participating in or organising demonstrations—amounts to state sanctioned killing.”
Sadly, those violent and appalling tactics are nothing new in Iran, and they have been in the oppression arsenal of the Iranian regime, security forces and police for many decades. The Islamic Republic of Iran was founded on murder and terror in 1979, and murder and terror have been used ever since to keep the regime and its barbaric leadership in place. In the five years following the revolution, up to 10,000 opponents of the new regime were executed, and in 1988, on the orders of Ayatollah Khomeini, thousands—probably tens of thousands—of political prisoners were executed without trial.
Protests are quelled through violence, murder and arrest, as happened during the 2009 Iranian presidential election protests and the 2019 Mahshahr massacre. Every day, the regime inflicts on its citizens arbitrary detention and killing, torture, denial of freedom of assembly and expression, gender-based violence, and discrimination against and persecution of minorities.
The Iranian regime and its security apparatus commit grave human rights violations daily, and that is not simply limited to the territory of Iran, because the wider Iranian regime and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps contribute to alarming security and human rights violations around the world, which every speaker in the debate has mentioned.
The preamble to the constitution of the Islamic Republic states that
“the Constitution provides the… basis for… the continuation of the Revolution at home and abroad.”
Iran has ambitions to be the dominant regional force in the middle east, and since the 1980s it has provided support for the Hezbollah armed group in Lebanon and the Assad regime in Syria. In recent decades, Iran has supported Shi’a militias in Iraq, especially following the 2003 US-led invasion, and has backed a Houthi group in the ongoing conflict in Yemen. The regime also has a history of providing missiles to Hamas in the Gaza strip.
Iran’s flagrant disregard for international law is also evident in its behaviour far beyond the region and its neighbours. As set out last year by Ken McCallum, the head of MI5, Iran’s aggressive intelligence services are a direct threat to people in the UK, and the Metropolitan police have reported 15 foiled plots since the start of last year either to kidnap or to kill UK-based individuals perceived as enemies of the Iranian regime.
In February, independent television network Iran International—one of the most prominent providers of news from the recent wave of anti-Government protests in Iran—suspended its operations in the UK because of threats against its London-based journalists. Two British-Iranian journalists from the channel were warned by police of a possible risk to their lives, with the TV network stating that it had made the decision owing to
“a significant escalation in state-backed threats from Iran”.
The threats had grown to the point at which it was no longer thought possible to protect the channel’s staff. This is here in the UK, but still we have not yet proscribed.
Not only do the UK Government have a responsibility to ensure the safety of those living in the UK who are targeted by the Iranian regime; they must protect UK-Iranian dual nationals in Iran, and it is deeply worrying that the FCDO continues to fail those nationals who have been arbitrarily detained there. The shameful execution of Alireza Akbari in January should serve as an urgent wake-up call to the FCDO on the callous barbarism of the Iranian regime and the serious injustice and failings of the Iranian judicial system. The FCDO needs to do better to protect UK nationals.
In December, Iranian state media reported that seven people with links to the UK, including some with dual nationality, had been arrested for involvement in protests. The FCDO must urgently provide an update on the whereabouts and wellbeing of those individuals, as well as an update on the efforts being made to secure their release.
Dual UK-Iranian nationals Morad Tahbaz and Mehran Raoof remain in arbitrary detention in Iran, and they have long been used as political tools by the Iranian regime. Their safe release and full pardon should be at the forefront of the FCDO’s work. We are well aware of the treatment of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, Anoosheh Ashoori and other dual UK-Iranian nationals detained, and even tortured, in Iranian prisons.
The FCDO cannot make the same mistakes with currently detained dual nationals that it has made in the past. Given the significant and continued human rights abuses, and the security threat posed by the Iranian regime, both inside and outside Iran, the UK Government must take bold action, and action now, to safeguard Iranians globally and send a strong message against the regime’s tyranny. Just as the UK Government have done with the Russian Wagner Group, the SNP calls on the Government to formally proscribe, without hesitation, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation. The SNP wholeheartedly welcomes reports that the UK is set to formally proscribe the Russian mercenary Wagner Group as a terrorist organisation. Alongside that move, the time has come for the UK Government to finally proscribe the IRGC not only because it is in the national interest, but because it is morally the right thing to do, and there is unanimity in this Chamber for it. We have to do it in solidarity with those facing daily repression at the hands of the Iranian regime and in honour of the tens of thousands who have lost their lives to that group since 1979. We know the IRGC is operating on UK soil and is violating human rights on a daily basis in Iran. The United States formally proscribed it in 2019, and it is now time that the UK follows suit.
While the SNP welcomes the UK sanctioning of top Iranian security officials since the beginning of the regime’s clampdown on protesters in 2022, we call on the FCDO to consider sanctioning the highest echelons of Iranian political society, including the supreme leader, given the inexcusable continuation of state-sponsored violence and killings.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith) for securing this timely and important debate. Many of us share his concern about the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. I and others have visited Mr Beheshti, as I am sure he has, outside the FCDO on King Charles Street. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) and I have been to see Mr Beheshti, and we had lengthy conversations with him. The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), has lent her considerable influence and weight to that debate as well.
We look in awe at the bravery of the protesters in Iran led by women and girls following the shocking death of Mahsa Amini and those women who continue to fight for “women, life, freedom” and the right to live their lives as they choose. We look in horror at the brutal repression carried out by the regime against those courageous women, men and children; at the breaches of freedom of religion or belief, as the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) put on the record; at the suffering of the Baha’i community in particular, and at the crackdown on journalists and freedom of speech online.
In response to the protests, state repression has seen Iranian security forces unlawfully firing live ammunition and metal pellets at protesters, killing hundreds of men, women and children and injuring thousands. Thousands more have been arbitrarily detained and unfairly prosecuted solely for peacefully exercising their human rights. Women, LGBT+ people and ethnic and religious minorities have continued to be targeted by the regime, suffering discrimination and violence, enforced disappearances, torture and other ill treatment, including through the deliberate denial of medical care, which has been reported as widespread and systemic.
While street protests in Iran have lessened in recent months, the regime’s repression continues and state-sponsored brutality escalated again recently with the execution of three more protesters: Majid Kazemi, Saleh Mirhashemi and Saeed Yaghoubi. Sentenced to death in grossly unfair trials without evidence and amid serious allegations of torture, their executions were designed to strike fear into the hearts of ordinary Iranian people and to suppress dissent. As Members have mentioned, Volker Türk, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said that it
“underlines our concerns that the Iranian authorities continue to have scant regard for international law”,
with the death penalty
“applied following judicial proceedings that failed to meet acceptable international standards of fair trial or due process.”
Indeed, the exact number of executions is unknown due to the lack of Government transparency and, sadly, that figure is likely to be much higher. Today, Amnesty International reports that at least 11 people sentenced to death are at grave risk of execution in connection with protests. We believe the international community has an important role to play and that the UK must stand unequivocally against the death penalty in all circumstances and wherever it is used in the world. I share concerns raised by human rights groups that the continued use of the death penalty in Iran demonstrates the limits of discrete diplomacy. What assessment has the Minister made of the spate of executions so far this year in Iran, and what concrete action are the UK Government taking with our international partners in response to the execution of three more protesters last month? With a further 11 people at grave risk of execution at the hands of the Iranian regime, what additional diplomatic pressure can be applied to ensure that the regime stops this horrific wave of execution?
As the hon. Member for Bassetlaw laid out in his opening remarks, Iran poses an increasing military threat at home and abroad. In Ukraine, Iranian-made Shahed drones have played a central role in Russia’s illegal war and its attacks on civilian targets in Ukraine. Last week, in response to Russian airstrikes attacking Kyiv, Ukraine introduced sanctions against the Iranian regime to stop Iranian goods transiting through Ukraine or using its airspace, as well as trade, financial and technology sanctions. Is there more that we can do here on sanctions? In the March refresh of the integrated review, the UK Government restated their aim to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, but there are deep concerns that the failure to restore the joint comprehensive plan of action and the stalling of talks since September 2022 may mean that Iran soon makes irreversible nuclear progress, rendering previous commitments meaningless.
Looking at the middle east and Iran’s role in the region more widely, we continue to be concerned about the regime’s support for terror groups and militias, as seen in its threats against Israel and its continued military involvement in Syria and elsewhere. We have seen other developments in the region, such as the recent rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Would the Minister give us his assessment of that development?
Here in the UK, since the start of 2022, Iran has been responsible for at least 15 potential threats against British or UK-based individuals perceived as enemies of the regime. In February this year, Iran International TV was forced to suspend its operations in London after state-backed threats were made against its journalists, in a deeply worrying attack on press freedom. Just last week in the IPU room here in Parliament, the well-known BBC Persian TV presenter Farnaz Ghazizadeh shared a platform with me and others, and she spoke movingly about her desire to see greater freedom of expression for Iranians and greater safety in the UK for her and her colleagues. Does the Minister believe enough is being done to protect Iranian diaspora members in the UK?
I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on the wider calls from Members across the House, including my hon. Friends the Members for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) and for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), and from the Iranian diaspora community to formally proscribe the IRGC as a terrorist organisation, either by using existing terrorism legislation or by creating a new process of proscription for hostile state actors. There must be a way of doing that.
As I draw my remarks to a close, I would like to focus on one final area, and it is something this House has been all too aware of in recent times: Iran’s engagement in state hostage-taking, which the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has described as a “systematic problem.” Today, British dual nationals Morad Tahbaz and Mehran Raoof remain incarcerated in Iran. We look back to the case of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, her brave husband Richard, her wider family and the community. It was my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) who skilfully brought that case to this House, and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) did the same with the case of Anoosheh Ashoori and Aras Amiri, who has spoken out this week about the ordeal she suffered in Evin prison. She wants to see other political prisoners—women like her, who are stuck in Evin—freed for good.
Last month, the Foreign Secretary told the House that the UK continues to
“make every effort to support British dual nationals incarcerated in Iran”—[Official Report, 14 March 2023; Vol. 729, c. 692.]
and that this remains an “ongoing piece of work.” However, the Foreign Affairs Committee was critical of the FCDO and its approach to assisting British citizens incarcerated abroad under false pretences and has urged the Government to go further to strengthen abroad and in Whitehall our deterrence against arbitrary detention of British citizens. What assessment has the Minister made of the competence of the FCDO in that regard? Is it an effective response to widespread human rights abuses of imprisoned British nationals?
The courage of the Iranian protesters is extraordinary. What we say in this place matters, so we must continue to shine a light on the situation and share our collective revulsion at the regime’s human rights violations. That will spur us on to take brave actions, including giving serious consideration to proscribing the IRGC.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
I ask the Minister to allow at least two minutes at the end for the mover of the motion to wind up the debate.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, as all Members have made clear. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith) for securing this important debate. Members across the House will agree that this has been an eloquent and sincere debate, and we have been united in our assessment of the Iranian threat not only in the United Kingdom but around the world. I am extremely grateful to the many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend, who contributed, and I will try to respond to all the points that they made.
As the House knows, my noble Friend Lord Ahmad leads on these matters with great distinction. I will pick up some of the themes that he has set out in the past and has said are extremely important.
The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer), who often speaks on these matters, made a point, which was picked up by others, about the way in which the rights of girls and women—not, alas, only in Iran, but in many places in the world—are receding. I am grateful to him for underlining that point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), who is, of course, the leader of our mission to the Council of Europe, made a point that was picked up by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) about schoolgirl poisonings, and I want to touch on that. The reports of schoolgirls being poisoned in Iran are deeply sinister, and we are continuing to monitor the situation closely. As the Minister for the middle east said,
“It is essential that girls are able to fully exercise their right to education without fear.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 March 2023; Vol. 828, c. 889.]
The regime must hold those responsible to account.
The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) made an important point about free media and the role of the BBC. I should stress to the House that the BBC is operationally and editorially independent from the Government, and decisions about how its services are delivered are a matter for it. Only a small fraction of the BBC’s Iranian audience receives BBC news solely via radio; the vast majority watch BBC Persian on TV and online, and both services will continue under the BBC’s current plans.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) talked about the effect of sanctions and the important opportunities presented to the House by the Magnitsky legislation, which he and I were heavily involved in promoting. The UK has imposed more than 70 new human rights sanctions since the protests sparked by the death of Mahsa Amini in September. Those sanctions send a clear message to the regime that we will seek to hold it to account for violent repression of its own people. We are obviously keeping those Magnitsky provisions under review, as we always should.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) also highlighted the attacks on the rights of women and raised the importance of getting back to 0.7% as soon as possible. I thank him for that. The hon. Member for Richmond Park spoke about the North Koreans, Tamils and Iranians in her constituency and underlined the fact that Britain has always sought to be generous in providing sanctuary for those fleeing persecution. She raised other points, some of which I will come to in a moment, but I want to thank her for her efforts on behalf of Iranians in her community. The UK maintains targeted sanctions against individuals and organisations responsible for human rights violations, nuclear escalation, regional destabilisation and other malign activity. Although I do not know the full details of the specific case that she has raised, our sanctions do not aim to target ordinary Iranians. If she wishes to take up with me the specific point that she made earlier about bank accounts, I will be happy to look into that for her.
The hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) made an eloquent speech in which he charted Iran’s contribution to international civilisation in the past. That contribution has been perverted over the last decades and he set out an eloquent charge sheet against the regime. He also raised the issue of UK detainees. I want to emphasise that the safety of UK nationals remains a top priority. We do, however—the House will understand this—respect the wishes of individuals and their families regarding the specific details of the cases being shared in public, but I can assure the House that we are guided first and foremost by the best interests of those individuals and we work closely with the families whenever we can.
Turning to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), who speaks for the official Opposition, I will come on to the significant matter she raised in her speech, but I want to make a couple of points first. I recognise what she said about Nazanin and her husband Richard and all that went on. She spoke for everyone in the House when she made those points. She also raised the case of Mr Beheshti. He has met ministerial colleagues in both the Home Office and the Foreign Office, and I very much share the hopes for his ongoing good health, which was raised by others in this debate. I hope Mr Beheshti will be reassured by the fact that the Government will continue to protect our security and that of our partners in the region by holding Iran to account for its destabilising activities.
On the point that the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green and others have raised about consular detainees, we in the Government urge Iran to stop its practice of unfairly detaining British and other foreign nationals. We will continue to work with like-minded partners to hold the regime in Iran to account. It remains entirely within Iran’s gift to release any British national who has been unfairly detained. We do not and will never accept our nationals being used for diplomatic leverage.
Catherine West
The Minister is making an excellent response to all the Members here, which is appreciated across the House. On the criticisms in the FCDO report on how British nationals are treated by consular missions abroad, does he believe that those criticisms are correct? What does he think the FCDO needs to do to make good on the current arrangements?
Mr Mitchell
This is a very important area of work carried out by the Foreign Office. There is an inquiry into the consular approach in Sudan, to which I will give evidence shortly, but the hon. Lady is right. How we treat consular detainees and how the consular system works is a vital part of our work. We look very carefully at any suggestions from the House or the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on how that can be improved. It is extremely important to do so without fear or favour, and we take advice from all quarters on how such services can be made better.
I turn now to the current situation. I want to emphasise that Iran’s reprehensible behaviour has escalated in recent months. As has been pointed out throughout the debate, its human rights record is appalling, with surging use of the death penalty, increased restrictions on women, intensified persecution of religious minorities and the further erosion of media and civic freedoms. The regime has brutally cracked down on protesters and made repeated attempts to target people outside Iran. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw set out, since January 2022 we have identified more than 15 credible threats to the lives of UK-based individuals, orchestrated by the Iranian regime.
Iran’s supply of drones to Russia to support its illegal war in Ukraine is deplorable and a direct violation of United Nations Security Council resolution 2231. Those drones are being used to attack Ukrainian citizens, cities and critical infrastructure. Iran’s escalation of its nuclear activities is threatening international peace and security, and undermining the global non-proliferation system.
We are working relentlessly across Government and with the international community to hold Iran to account for its unacceptable behaviour. In that context, I will look first at UK action. Let me begin by addressing Iran’s appalling human rights record. The executions of three more protesters in May is a shocking reminder of how the regime uses the death penalty to instil fear and suppress dissent. In 2022, Iran executed at least 576 people—nearly double the number the previous year. The death toll includes Iranians who were children at the time of their alleged offence, which is a flagrant breach of international law. The latest estimates indicate that the rate of executions continues to climb. One human rights group recorded at least 142 executions last month alone—a truly staggering number. Inside Iran, such killings have met with public outcry. The people of Iran have had enough of their Government’s impunity and violence, and they are rightly demanding a better future.
The UK will continue to seek to hold Iran to account for its behaviour. As the House will know, His Majesty’s Government strongly oppose the death penalty in all circumstances, and our ambassador in Tehran ensures that Iran’s leaders are left in no doubt about the political and diplomatic price they are paying for their brutality. Since last October we have sanctioned more than 70 individuals and entities for their human rights abuses, including the Prosecutor General, who is at the heart of Iran’s barbaric use of the death penalty.
I move now to the issue of state threats. Over the past 18 months, we have seen the regime orchestrate multiple credible threats to the lives of those living in the UK, including towards media organisations and journalists. We will always stand up to such behaviour from foreign nations, because our priority is the safety and security of the UK and those who live here. We have repeatedly made it clear to the Iranian regime that the threats are intolerable and will be met with a significant response. We are working tirelessly across Government and with our international partners to identify, deter and respond to such threats. It is time now—indeed, it is long past time—for the regime to listen. It must stop threatening the lives of ordinary people in Iran and elsewhere, including in this country.
I turn to an issue that was, I think, raised by everyone who spoke in the debate: the IRGC’s regional activity. We take very seriously the threatening behaviour of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Not only have we sanctioned the organisation in its entirety, but we have sanctioned 29 individuals and entities affiliated with it since last October. That includes the Basij force—the arm of the IRGC that is mobilised to enforce brutal repression on the streets of Iran—and, most recently, four commanders under whose leadership IRGC forces have opened fire on arbitrarily detained and tortured protesters.
As has been repeatedly underlined in the House, the list of proscribed terrorist organisations is of course kept under review. As the House knows, and usually accepts, we do not routinely comment on whether an organisation is under consideration for proscription, but the House may rest assured that across all parts of the Government, those matters are kept under the closest possible review and are looked at to assess the most effective way of proceeding in what everyone in the debate has made clear is an absolute priority.
The regime’s wider destabilising activity is rampant. It includes support for a number of militant groups, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria—as the hon. Member for Dundee West set out—militias in Iraq and the Houthis in Yemen. HMS Lancaster, the UK’s permanent naval presence in the Gulf, has interdicted Iranian weapons transfers to the Houthis—further evidence of Iran’s destabilising activity in the region. We are working across Government and with our international allies to ensure that our collective response is robust, deters the regime from such malign activity and holds it to account wherever possible for threatening international security.
I return to the point I made earlier about Iran’s support for Russia. Iran is now one of Russia’s top military backers, supplying hundreds of drones that have been used to bombard Ukraine. Iran is testing its weapons in a new theatre through those sordid deals and, in return, Russia is offering military and technical support to the regime. We strongly condemn Iran’s actions in supporting Russia’s illegal war, and we have sanctioned 11 individuals and two manufacturers responsible for supplying drones. We will continue to call out that desperate alliance on the international stage and hold Russia and Iran to account.
Meanwhile, Iran’s nuclear programme has never been more advanced. Iran refused to seize the critical opportunity to sign the revised joint comprehensive plan of action in August last year, making demands outside the scope of the agreement. The International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly highlighted Iran’s lack of co-operation with long-running investigations into undeclared material. Iran’s malign activity has made the diplomatic context even more challenging, but we remain committed to ensuring that Iran never develops a nuclear weapon and are working closely with our partners to find a diplomatic solution.
We are working relentlessly across Government and with the international community to hold Iran to account for its unacceptable behaviour, its appalling treatment of its own people, its reprehensible support for Russia’s illegal war and its escalating nuclear activities. Just like the Iranian people, we want to see a more responsible Iran—one that respects the rights and freedoms of all its citizens and does not threaten international peace and security. We urge the country’s leaders to listen to their citizens as they demand a better future.
Brendan Clarke-Smith
It has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. It would be remiss of me not to congratulate Sheffield Wednesday on their promotion.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
I can reciprocate for Notts County—being completely neutral in the Chair, of course.
Brendan Clarke-Smith
Thank you, Mr Betts; that is much appreciated.
I thank the Minister for the update on what the Government are doing to address many of the concerns raised today, and I thank all Members present for their impassioned and eloquent speeches, which showed the very best of this House.
The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) made some excellent points, with which I agree entirely; his example of Press TV was a good one. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) and the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) made excellent points about the worrying number of executions and the treatment of women, children and the LGBT community. I am sure the Government are bearing that in mind.
The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) talked about British nationals and Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. It is very important that we understand the Iranians currently living in the UK. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) also mentioned her constituents. I thank her for those examples, which added a human touch to what we are discussing.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) discussed the treatment of protestors, which has been horrific, and the importance of internet access and a free press in addressing that. That was also touched on by the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law), who gave some excellent examples of the horrific treatment we have seen. I thank the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) for her remarks regarding Mr Beheshti and the brave people who speak out.
I hope the debate will encourage the Government to take further action and, ultimately, to fully proscribe the IRGC.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Professional Wrestling: Event Licensing and Guidance
(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
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of professional wrestling event licensing and guidance.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. The all-party parliamentary group on wrestling is without a doubt one of the most joyous and exciting in this institution. I am proud to be an active vice-chair, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher)—our co-chairs—and to our group secretary, Danny Stone. They have brought serious and appropriate discussion of wrestling into this place, where too often in the past it was mocked.
Among our number we have fans of World Wrestling Entertainment, All Elite Wrestling, Impact, New Japan Pro-Wrestling and, most importantly, British promotions such as the all-women show EVE, PROGRESS, Revolution Pro Wrestling, NORTH, TNT and Renaissance, as well as start-ups such as the all-new women’s promotion, Galzilla, which literally hatched from an egg on the stage at the amazing Wrestival festival in London this year. Those wrestling promotions span the country, as do wrestling schools. In my constituency of Warrington North, we have our own wrestling academy, the Warrington Wrestling Academy, and I look forward to many Warringtonians making their way to the major leagues in years to come.
Fans often remark that, in the UK, one could go to a wrestling event nearly every night of the week, if one wanted to do so, and pack out the weekends with entertainment. Shows run in schools, gyms, entertainment venues and even fields. Of course, to run events safely and to a standard, there is a licensing requirement—or at least there should be.
In April 2021, the APPG released what constitutes the first ever thorough, systemic parliamentary analysis of wrestling. One of its key themes is the categorisation of wrestling as either theatre or sport. That might appear a simple matter, but wrestling involves serious athleticism alongside dramatic performance. There are competitions, albeit predetermined ones. Both Sport England and Arts Council England have funded wrestling, but neither particularly wants the responsibility of being a home for English wrestlers or wrestling.
Our APPG took the view—a novel one, I think—that for wrestling schools, the designation should be sporting, whereas promotions should be classed as theatrical. As the report made clear, defining promotions as theatrical entertainment opens up conversations about licensing, representation, governance, and improved policies and procedures. On the matter of policies and procedures, we were pleased to work recently with Loughborough University, with support from the PlayFight wrestling school, on the first ever parliamentary conference on wrestling, and we are developing a guide to better practice, which we hope will be informed by those in the industry, to help others across the British wrestling world.
We were told during the all-party group’s inquiry that the lack of a definition, whether as sport or art, created a minefield when it came to insurance and licensing. We have concerns that for promotions, the licensing system may still be somewhat of a minefield, particularly when people are navigating different licensing schemes. We know for certain that there are issues in this wholly unregulated industry. Concerns were raised with us about poor or, in some cases, illegal practices, ranging from tax malpractice and fraud to dangerous health and safety arrangements and sexual harassment. We were repeatedly warned about a lack of adequate medical supplies and supervision. The inquiry received one submission that drew on a wider understanding of promotions in the north of England and suggested that expertise to identify and treat injuries was “only intermittently present” at shows.
I am particularly grateful to Professor Claire Warden at Loughborough for her insights. She highlighted how the approaches of local councils can differ remarkably in just a few miles, even if the language used in licensing forms is similar. In Leicester, for instance, wrestling is considered “regulated entertainment”—in itself interesting, given the wholly unregulated nature of wrestling in actuality—alongside the performance of a play, exhibition or music, or an indoor sporting event. Boxing is the only sport mentioned on the list.
In Nottingham, wrestling is licensed under the “regulated entertainment” classification, but with a caveat that, although no licence is required for Greco-Roman or freestyle, combined fighting sports are licensable as boxing or wrestling entertainment, rather than an indoor sporting event. Similarly, Derby City Council, which has a whole section on boxing, wrestling and fighting sports, seems to compare wrestling to mixed martial arts rather than theatre.
Manchester thinks about numbers, acknowledging that a licence is not required for a play, dance, film, indoor sporting event or, indeed, boxing or wrestling, defined as a
“contest, exhibition or display of Greco-Roman wrestling or freestyle wrestling between 8am and 11pm,”
where attendance is 1,000 or fewer. By including the sense that wrestling might be a “display” rather than a contest, it opens up potential for confusion about whether professional wrestling is included. Surely all Greco-Roman and freestyle wrestling is a contest, as that is what actively defines them as different from professional wrestling.
There are difficulties, too, in other areas. I appreciate that this is a devolved matter, but we are told it can be difficult to run shows in Edinburgh, for example, because wrestling is classed as sport for licensing purposes, and therefore performances in theatres and other venues can apparently be very difficult.
What that means in actuality is confusion and potentially dangerous situations. There are examples of licensing schemes causing problems. In Derby, one venue had a licence for live music and sports events, but the council required a temporary licence for wrestling, which was seen as separate from sport. The council refused the licence to the venue, owing to fears about congestion—notably, not about safety or the suitability of the athletes or venue.
Another interesting story emerged in 2011, when the Royal Albert Hall, a venue famous for holding wrestling shows since the beginning of professional wrestling, faced local opposition to its request to add boxing and wrestling to the list of permitted activities. The complaints seemed entirely focused on
“problems with antisocial behaviour, public safety, noise and disturbance, and degradation of the surrounding area.”
Again, safety was not mentioned, but there was the sense, as there is so often, that wrestling appeals to people less socially acceptable to residents than, say, Proms-goers.
A similar opinion seems to be held by residents around Headingley in Leeds, despite the fact that it is a sporting venue. In that case, the council’s licensing committee unanimously refused the application, saying that the event was
“very different in nature and duration to rugby matches held regularly at the venue.”
Wrestling Resurgence, a midlands-based promoter, sent us the various procedures it puts in place when obtaining a licence from Nottingham City Council—specifically, that a medic must be present—but argued that
“some form of ‘fit and proper persons’ test should be in place for prospective promotions, similar to ownership tests in football, or that at minimum some basic standardised requirements put in place.”
The company highlighted the disparity in licensing requirements, saying:
“In Nottingham, where we run events, it is a requirement that wrestling event organisers ensure a medical professional is present at all times during a performance. This is something that is not required in Leicester.”
We certainly think that medics are a must, but, as Wresting Resurgence says,
“A national approach to licensing would be very welcomed.”
It is quite right—it would.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, and I am proud that she is the vice-chair of the APPG that I proudly co-chair. On Monday, I attended a very special conference at Loughborough University with Professor Claire Warden, focusing on concussion in professional wrestling. The point about licensing was raised time and again, as was the utmost importance of having a registered professional medic available at events. That should be part of the requirements, given the nature of the sector and performances, because concussion is likely. That is why such provisions are vital. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Charlotte Nichols
I could not agree more. I know that British wrestling is doing a lot of work with the Rugby Football League, for example, on concussion protocols. Unfortunately, despite the pre-determined nature of what happens in a wrestling ring, injuries and accidents are common, so medics should be there to make sure that such risks can be mitigated as far as possible.
The evidence I mentioned fed into the APPG’s inquiry and our recommendation that:
“For any sized promotion, having even limited safety measures in place should be part of the key requirements for running an event, either through requirements to use council property, the TENs licence or a governing body and in the absence of the latter, we recommend that the Home Office brings forward proposals to broaden TENs licence guidance to include health and safety and other minimum standards protocols for wrestling suppliers. We recognise that the legislation is different in Scotland and Northern Ireland, but we request that both devolved administrations assess whether their current licencing rules adequately cover wrestling promotions”.
In June 2021, we wrote to the then Minister of State at the Home Office, Lord Stephen Greenhalgh, to seek his assistance with the implementation of the recommendation in the APPG’s report, which was welcomed at the Dispatch Box by the Government. We asked about the possibility of widening the temporary events notice licence guidance to include health and safety, and other minimum standards protocols, for wrestling suppliers, and sought guidance on arrangements for Scotland and Northern Ireland. The APPG followed up on the letter, but to no avail, so I am delighted that the Minister will be able to update us today on what progress there has been and what plans might be in place.
I hope the Minister can also demonstrate a degree of updated thinking. Cam Tilley, who wrestles under the moniker Kamille Hansen—and who is a former researcher in this place—pointed out to us, through the dissertation that she has just finished on related issues, that these matters have already been discussed in this House. In the 1960s, questions were posed about the prohibition of wrestling performances by women, with the reply that there was no evidence to suggest that the issue was widespread enough to merit action and that this was ultimately a matter for local authorities to decide on as part of their licensing powers. However, London County Council had already fallen into the mode of effectively banning women’s wrestling in venues that it had licensed in the previous decades.
In 2002, during a debate on what would become the Licensing Act 2003, the other place was told:
“we know that boxing and wrestling and their audiences present a significant issue with regard to public safety. As the noble Baroness said, the relationship between wrestling and its audience is particularly engaging, and its showmanship can engage the audience very directly. But, as has been known for many decades, boxing also engages passions. From time to time, boxing bouts have aroused as much vigour in the audience as in those participating in the ring—in some cases, rather more than occurs in the ring.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 December 2002; Vol. 642, c. 391.]
Wrestling and boxing are far from the same; I speak as someone who has now been to multiple wrestling shows, large and small. That is not to say that boxing is always violent or problematic, but the lumping together of boxing and wrestling for licensing purposes has certainly caused problems. Wrestling has no concussive intent—although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd said, of course concussive injuries occur—whereas the sole intent of boxing is to knock out the opponent. To conflate the two for licensing purposes makes very little sense.
We were told that some years ago that Tower Hamlets turned down wrestling events on advice from the local police, who had taken a decision based on boxing events. Similarly, we were told that in the past inter-promotional wars were waged between those wrestling companies that had clocked the importance of boxing-related restrictions on a licence and those that had not, with one company forcing another to forfeit a licensing opportunity.
The constant association of wrestling with boxing is deeply problematic. The concern is always that the local licensing process is so complex and likely to lead to rejection that wrestling shows are occurring around the country in unregulated venues or without licensing. We in the APPG would like to see some consistency in approaches to licensing, enhanced confidence for promoters so that they can hold a show, and certainty for all about how wrestling should be categorised by local authorities and what the requirements are or should be. I hope that the Minister can begin to set out that pathway to clarity for us today.
The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Sir John Whittingdale)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) on obtaining this debate and on her very informative speech. I pay tribute to her and her colleagues in the all-party parliamentary group—I am delighted to see the co-chair, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), present. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) and for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher), who are active members. One of the things that come out of the all-party group’s extremely comprehensive and informative report is those Members’ shared passion for wrestling.
British wrestling has a long heritage dating back several centuries in the UK. It goes as far back as travelling fairs and carnivals in the 19th century, where skilled wrestlers showcased their abilities. Over time, it has evolved into a distinctive style that emphasises technical prowess and a connection with the audience—the report makes that point strongly—which is one of the key elements of British wrestling. British wrestling contrasts with the American version that we all too often see on our screens, which prioritises flashy manoeuvres and larger-than-life characters.
Frequently, British wrestling takes place in small, intimate venues that allow fans to be in close proximity, creating an atmosphere in which the crowd’s reactions become an integral part of the show. I am old enough to recall watching wrestling on ITV on Saturday evenings. Kent Walton would open the proceedings with “Greetings, grapple fans” each week, and we saw characters such as Kendo Nagasaki, Jackie Pallo, and of course the larger-than-life characters of Max Crabtree, the promoter, and his brother, Shirley, who became better known as Big Daddy. Those times are long gone, but it is encouraging that British wrestling has seen a resurgence, with a high calibre of talents and promotions. We now have elite wrestlers such as Saraya Bevis, Pete Dunne and Tyler Bate representing the UK in international promotions such as WWE. That has allowed the UK’s scene to rival the larger promotions across the world. That is an important part of soft power, which is of great importance to my Department.
Wrestling is a thriving industry. There has been not only an increase in the number of shows booked, but a steady rise in audience numbers. I read the chapter in the report on the impact on the sport of covid-19; wrestling was obviously not alone, but its nature meant that it was hit particularly severely by the pandemic. Since then, great progress has been made, and British promotions such as Progress Wrestling, Revolution Pro Wrestling and Insane Championship Wrestling have dedicated followings and showcase some of the best talent.
The hon. Member for Warrington North went through a number of the recommendations of the APPG report, which covers a broad range of issues, and I will say a few words on each of them. A lot of the recommendations, including the one on safety standards and safeguarding, are to some extent in the gift of the wrestling industry itself. Of course, everyone deserves to work in a workplace that feels safe and secure, and I think we all agree that wrestling needs to put safety and wellbeing at the forefront of its priorities. However, there is no need for the industry to start with a blank sheet of paper. There is already a wealth of information from other sectors that can be used as a starting point.
Charlotte Nichols
The Minister refers to information from other sectors that can be used as a starting point, but conflating wrestling and boxing is part of the problem, as I highlighted in my speech. Does he not think that it is time that we had some simple, clear, basic guidance from the Home Office to local councils about how to license a safe wrestling event?
Sir John Whittingdale
I think there are two separate points there about the health and safety guidance and the licensing. I fully acknowledge that there is a lack of clarity—shall we say?—in each of those that could be addressed.
Let me start with safeguarding, which is an important way of ensuring that the interests of children and young people are protected. The child protection in sport unit provides a framework of standards that organisations working with children and young people should meet. For the arts and entertainment sector—I recognise that part of the problem relates to the fact that wrestling sits somewhere between the two—the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has produced guidance. The Department for Education has been helpful in advising local authorities and individuals working with children in all types of professional or amateur performances, paid sport or paid modelling.
The APPG report states that sports coaches should be considered to be in a position of trust for the purposes of child sexual offences and recommends that wrestling coaches should be explicitly recognised as being in such positions of trust. Recent amendments made to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 by the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 mean that sports coaches are now recognised as being in a position of trust as regards those in their care and the criminal offences linked to that position. The 2022 Act states that sport includes
“any form of physical recreation which is also engaged in for purposes of competition or display”.
We believe that includes a range of activities such as wrestling.
On licensing requirements, I recognise, and the hon. Member for Warrington North has set out, that there is disparity across the country between the attitude taken by different authorities. There have been quite disturbing incidents such as the one in County Durham, when children were subject to what most people would regard as inappropriate content during something that was billed as a family show. I do not think that is widespread, but it must be carefully monitored.
Professional wrestling events are licensed through the entertainment licensing system, and local authorities, in carrying out their functions, must consider the licensing objectives. Those are, as the hon. Lady knows, the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. It is for regulating authorities to look at events such as the one in County Durham and take them into account, alongside issues such as public safety, protecting children and preventing disorder. In my constituency, there was an application for a wrestling match and there was a lack of awareness of some of the requirements. We are happy to talk about the issue further with the Home Office, which has ultimate responsibility for licensing, and to draw its attention to the hon. Lady’s speech.
Charlotte Nichols
Having spoken to local councillors, I know that a number of wrestling events take place in Warrington. They find that lack of clarity troubling because many do not have the knowledge and understanding of the wrestling sector that the Minister does, so they are not sure what they are meant to be looking at when determining whether an event should be licensed. They need something that makes it clear to them; a tick-box exercise when making such determinations would be beneficial. Does the Minister agree?
Sir John Whittingdale
Certainly. I agree that it would be helpful if we removed the confusion and lack of clarity. As I said, licensing is a Home Office responsibility but, if further work can be done to provide guidance or advice, I am happy to ask the Home Office to look at that. I am sure the hon. Lady, the hon. Member for Pontypridd and members of the APPG will be happy to pursue that with the Home Office, but I have absolutely taken note of what she has said.
Building on licensing, the APPG recommended that the industry adopt a set of health and safety standards. I was pleased to hear that the Health and Safety Executive met the APPG in February, and it was agreed that the best way forward will be for the industry to take the lead on the production of new guidance. The HSE has offered to provide support through reviewing relevant sections and providing advice on drafting matters relating to health and safety law, but it is the case that industry-led guidance is generally respected and well received by the industry since they have ownership of it. It can make a significant difference. I take particular note of the recommendation that it should include provision that a doctor should always be present for matches. That clearly makes sense, and I am sure that the HSE will be happy to talk about that further when drawing up the guidance to which I have referred.
Reference was made to the issue of concussion guidance. Such guidance has recently been published by my Department and the Sport and Recreation Alliance for a number of different sports, and I am aware that it is of great relevance to wrestling as well. The hon. Member for Warrington North referred to the Concussion in Wrestling: Building a Better Understanding conference that took place in Loughborough on Monday, where I am sure some of the expert evidence will have been very helpful. It is a matter of great concern.
The wider question of trying to prevent brain injuries and concussion in sport is one that we have debated in the main Chamber and here in Westminster Hall. The guidelines have been drawn up by an expert panel of domestic and international clinicians and academics in neurology and sports medicine, and they set out steps to improve the understanding and awareness of the prevention and treatment of concussion in grassroots sport. I hope that this will help the wrestling community to have a better understanding of concussion recognition, and will ultimately help to make wrestling a safer sport for those participating.
I refer to wrestling as a sport, although the APPG report made a good point by describing it as “sport-art”, because it has elements of sport and elements of entertainment and performance. That brings me to my final point, which is about the issue of categorisation. I am aware that the APPG report suggests that the training for wrestling should be considered a sport, while the performance element is entertainment. This is not something that the Government generally get involved in classifying; it is left to the five sporting bodies, and I know that the APPG is in conversation with Sport England. As has been pointed out, Sport England supports British Wrestling with funding, but professional wrestling is still regarded as entertainment. However, the report’s recommendations are certainly worth pursuing, so I encourage the APPG to talk further to Sport England. We would be happy to help facilitate that, if it would be helpful.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Warrington North on securing the debate and all her colleagues involved in the preparation of the extremely helpful and comprehensive report. We will consider the issues further. We all want to see a successful wrestling industry in this country, for the benefit of both its participants and the fans. Once again, I thank the hon. Lady for giving us the opportunity to debate the matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Pupil Roll Numbers and School Closures: London
(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
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
The sitting is resumed. We come to an important debate on pupil roll numbers and school closures in London.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered pupil roll numbers and school closures in London.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Hollobone. It is a pleasure to lead my third Westminster Hall debate and to discuss this really important issue. I am grateful to everyone for coming. I also thank London Councils, which has supported me to raise this important issue.
This is an emotive topic. I think everybody here remembers when they went to school; those experiences really do stay with us for life. I still have memories of when I went on a visit from primary school to big school—secondary school—in my summer uniform. I thought this place was like Hogwarts, but when I walked into secondary school it felt like Hogwarts too, because it was so much bigger! Schools are places that communities are built around: places where, as children, we learn to make friends and find our passions in life; and, as parents, we watch our children learn about the world and their place in it.
As a proud Londoner who has lived in Lambeth all my life and now has the opportunity to represent my home constituency of Vauxhall, this debate is personal for me. I went to four schools in total: Durand Primary School and St Helen’s Catholic Primary School, then to Bishop Thomas Grant School and St Francis Xavier Catholic Sixth Form College, all of which were a short trip away from where we stand now. We will talk about policy over the course of the debate, but this is a human issue. We all care deeply about the communities we represent, and schools sit at the centre of them. We all want our city to thrive, with an education system that produces the next generation of Londoners—one that gives them the chances we all had. That is a shared purpose that I hope will define this debate.
The current situation facing London schools is a difficult one. There has been a sharp decline in the number of children born here. In fact, the latest data shows that between 2012 and 2021, there was a 17% decrease in London’s birth rate, which represents a reduction of over 20,000 births. We are only just beginning to see the effects, as children born across that period reach school age, but it is already clear that it will have a drastic impact on the number of pupils attending London schools. The scale varies across boroughs, but it is predicted that reception numbers will fall by an average of 7.3% by 2027—a drop of more than 7,000 pupils. And it is not just primary schools; secondary schools are seeing the same thing happen at a slightly delayed rate, with an anticipated decline of 3.5% over five years. That figure will increase further over time as children currently starting primary school reach secondary age.
The declining birth rate leaves many schools facing an uphill struggle to stay afloat. Our national education funding model works on a per pupil basis. Across the country, schools are already working hard on very tight budgets.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. Many headteachers in my constituency of Battersea have raised concerns about the viability of their schools remaining open. Obviously, the inflation challenges are having an impact on their budgets, but, more importantly, is the fall in the numbers of children coming into their schools. Form entry is reducing due to things like the pandemic, London becoming an unaffordable place to live, a lack of affordable housing, Brexit and many other factors. If schools are having to close, which has been the case in some London boroughs—thankfully not in my own constituency—they will leave a hole in our communities. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to work with our teachers and all authorities to look for solutions to ensure that we do not see schools in our communities closing, which also takes away choice from families and children?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for making such an important point; her constituency neighbours mine, so a number of my constituents attend schools in her constituency and vice versa. This is about parental choice. The fact is that if schools are closing in some London boroughs and the Government do not address the situation now, there could be a ripple effect. I will come to that point later.
This process happening in secondary schools. Our national education funding model works on a per pupil basis and across the country schools are struggling. In Lambeth, where my constituency is, we are sadly at the forefront of these pressures. It is predicted that we will be hit harder than any other London borough, with an anticipated drop of 15% in the number of reception pupils by 2027. Secondary school numbers are also predicted to reduce by more than 12% over the same period.
The reality is that this trend can be linked to the Government’s record. In the years before they came to power in 2010, Lambeth experienced a 19% increase in demand for reception places. As a result, schools were built, refurbished or redeveloped across the borough to account for this fast-growing population of school-age children. I feel proud that I added to their number with my son, who is six years old today, and my daughter, who is eight; they both attend Lambeth schools.
The Tory failure to manage the economy has led to the spiralling cost of living crisis and the situation is not helped by the lack of affordable housing being built. This has priced people out of their communities and caused the decline in school numbers across Lambeth. Sadly, we are witnessing the harsh impact of this situation. Two schools in Lambeth are closing because they do not have enough pupils to be financially sustainable.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. She made a powerful point about the sky-high childcare and housing costs in London, which are driving people out of the capital. In Richmond upon Thames, we have not quite seen the level of reduction in pupil numbers that there is in Lambeth, but in my constituency of Twickenham we had to close down eight reception classes in the last academic year and seven reception classes this year. In a few years, that will feed into the secondary school sector, where, of course, academies can raise their pupil numbers at will and local authorities have no control over them. Does she agree that it is high time that local councils were given strategic powers to co-ordinate all school places and admissions in their area, so that every child can go to a good local school?
Florence Eshalomi
I agree. That is something that my party is committed to. I hope that my colleague—the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan)—will be able to outline why it is important that we have that approach.
Archbishop Tenison’s School in my constituency announced in May that it will close at the end of this academic year, and it was closely followed by St Martin-in-the-Fields High School for Girls in Tulse Hill, which is represented by another constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), although young pupils also attend it from my constituency of Vauxhall and that of my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy). Both these secondary schools have histories dating back to the 17th century and their closures will leave a huge hole in the communities they have served.
I will say a bit more about Archbishop Tenison’s School, because its closure has directly impacted my constituents. The beautiful, grand, 1920s school building is matched by the school’s history. The school overlooks the Oval cricket ground and has proudly offered high-quality education to many generations of south Londoners who have studied there. I have had the pleasure of visiting on many occasions, and every time I have been struck by the strong sense of community. Pupils from all different backgrounds feel at home there.
The school’s closure has caused an outpouring of sadness. I was contacted by so many constituents who were shocked by the announcement, many of whom were former pupils with so many happy memories to share. The closure has caused significant practical disruption for the current students, which brings me back to the people at the centre of what we are discussing: the children and the school staff who have to bear the brunt of what is happening.
Mr Hollobone, I want us all to imagine what this would feel like: imagine what it would be like to be in the middle of your school journey, in a place you know like the back of your hand, having navigated the corridors where you have made friends you have seen every day for years; you feel at home. Then, one morning—out of the blue—you come to school to hear that your school is closing. You are probably preparing for exams and coping with the stress of being a teenager, but at the same time have to start at a completely new school, maybe in a new area, with new teachers, new classmates and new buildings. The uncertainty of the situation is having an impact on our young people mentally, and this will happen to many children in the years ahead if we do not act now.
Fortunately, neighbouring schools have rallied round to help minimise the impact for students from Archbishop Tenison’s. I am particularly grateful to St Gabriel’s College, which has agreed to take on a majority of the students in exam years, as well as a majority of the teaching staff. Earlier this week I had the pleasure of visiting St Gabriel’s with my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South, and we saw preparations for the new students. Many areas would not be lucky enough to have such a sustainable alternative nearby, but even where a new school is found, the process will be disruptive for all involved.
My central point is a simple one: without action to address falling pupil numbers, Archbishop Tenison’s and St Martin-in-the-Fields will be joined by other good schools across London being forced to shut their doors. Data from London Councils shows that there are 14 parliamentary constituencies in London where at least one school has already closed or is consulting on closure—that is just in the last two years—but it does not have to be inevitable.
The Government have to act to address the core issues driving young families out of the capital and causing the birth rate to fall. There are a number of factors behind this behaviour. During the pandemic, we saw many families move away from London to be closer to relatives during the lockdown. Some have chosen to resettle where they are, because moving back to London is, frankly, too expensive. The picture has not been helped by the loss of many young European families who were living here in recent years. The uncertainty of the Government’s post-Brexit immigration policy has meant that we have lost the stability we had in previous years, and this has caused many to move away from the UK, leaving a hole in London’s workforce and meaning fewer people are settling here. Those factors have played a part in putting schools under pressure in recent years.
The single most important reason for the fall in the number of children growing up in London is the affordability crisis. It is an issue frequently discussed in the context of the cost of living. Sky-high inflation has pushed up the cost of everything from food to energy bills and household goods; we have all spoken about the issues and the pressing need for the Government to do so much more, but London’s affordability problem has long-term roots, starting with the extortionate cost of housing. The impossibility of finding an affordable place to buy as a young adult is a problem across the country, but it is particularly significant in London.
The average property sale price in London is now over half a million pounds. That is wildly out of reach for so many young couples wanting to start a family, and the private rental market is not a suitable alternative. Private rents have soared in recent years, driven by rising demand and falling supply. I have heard from so many of my Vauxhall constituents who face the choice between paying nearly double the rent to renew their tenancy or having to battle—in some cases, with up to 60 people—just to view a rental property. For a young family with children, that is no option.
Despite the best efforts of our councils to cope with the rapid rise in demand, social housing waiting lists are at an all-time high. Taken together, that means that young couples on lower and middle incomes simply have no choice but to leave London and look for cheaper housing elsewhere. Fewer children are being born here because of that, which fuels the drop in demand for school places. The housing crisis runs through so many issues we face, but if we are serious about protecting the future of our fantastic schools, Ministers must ensure that London remains a place where people of all backgrounds can afford to live.
Without more young families staying in London, we may sadly lose more schools. I have already spoken about the impact of school closures, but the loss of a school is also a wider risk to national education standards. As schools close and pupils are relocated, existing schools become larger. Over time, that creates a culture of survival of the biggest, where smaller schools are consumed by those with more capacity. We have already seen that locally with larger academies seeking to expand at the expense of neighbouring schools. That trend threatens the mix of small and big schools that defines London’s school ecosystem, reduces parental choice, and leaves smaller schools unable to compete, even if they are performing well.
For most pupils, what does that mean? It means longer commutes, and bigger class sizes, which puts pressure on our teachers, who are so stretched that some are at breaking point. Some are leaving the profession they love and care about, while the others are left with less time to spend with our children. Also, resources for specialist teaching are squeezed, and those with special educational needs are adversely impacted. Collectively, all those factors damage school standards.
The reality is that where education declines, the life chances of future generations suffer. That is what is at stake when schools close. The importance of that has been reflected in recent media coverage. Last month, the BBC reported that London is becoming “a city without children”. That should worry us all. London is a vibrant, diverse and young city, built on young people. If there are less of them living here, our economic strength to compete in a global world will be harmed. The UK economy will be hit hard by our capital city falling behind.
But what do we have? So far, Ministers have been silent, acting as if this is not happening on their watch. There are spatial impacts: if people are priced out of their home communities, gentrification will accelerate. I am proud to be a working-class girl from Brixton, and I still live there today. I know how important lifelong Londoners are to this city. I am proud to meet so many of them on my walkabouts across my constituency. They are the lifeblood of London, which would be so much poorer without them.
I have five simple asks of the Minister to help. First, further school closures can be avoided if the Department for Education recognises the pressure in the system. Will the Government please work with school leaders and local authorities to identify schools at risk of closure and to work out a plan?
Secondly, London’s birth rate means that pupil roll numbers will fall over the next few years. We have to plan ahead. Will the Minister address the inequalities in school funding? Will he work with the sector to develop a collaborative approach to the challenges ahead, so that we do not see disruption to education standards?
Thirdly, affordable housing shortages are driving young families out of London. The Mayor of London and many of our councils do all they can to increase the supply of affordable housing, but the reality is that the national planning framework, which the Government control, is stacked in favour of developers building high-end housing that no one can afford. Will the Government bring forward their long-awaited planning reform? Will they put power back in the hands of local communities, so that those communities can have development that meets the needs of the local population?
Fourthly, the local housing allowance is a lifeline for many low and middle-income families in the private rented sector, but the Government have frozen its rate since April 2020. Rents have gone through the roof since then. Will the Minister please ask the Chancellor to reverse that real-terms cut to housing support and give hope to the millions of people who have been forced out of their homes?
Finally, will the Minister meet me and other interested MPs to discuss the issue in more detail? Will he work with us to find a solution?
I will end by taking us back to the heart of the issue: the children who have their life chances impacted by what has happened to our schools in recent years. The Government may want to look away and pretend that this is nothing to do with them—that it is the fault of, and down to, the multi-academy trusts or MATs, the education authorities and the schools—but the reality is that Ministers are the ones with the power to do something. I urge them to act now.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
The debate can last until 4 o’clock. I am obliged to call the Opposition spokesman no later than 3.37 pm and the Minister at 3.47 pm. The guideline limits are 10 minutes each for the Opposition spokesman and for the Minister. The mover of the motion will have three minutes at the end to sum up the debate. Until 3.37 pm, we are in Back-Bench time.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Hollobone, for letting me follow my dear friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), and for accepting my apology for having to go to another meeting, although I will come back.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. We know that some mainstream primary schools are not as inclusive as they could be in admitting children with special educational needs and disabilities. I have been approached by many parents in my constituency who would like their children with special needs to go to a mainstream school. The surplus of places in many primary schools across London gives us an opportunity to identify ways of making them more inclusive to children with special educational needs and disabilities. We need to ensure that schools are appropriately funded to meet the needs of children with SEND. However, some children with SEND need provision that is best delivered by a special school. Given the shortage of local special schools in London, I hope the Minister will commit to support and fund local authorities so that they can expand local specialist provision where there is a clear need.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Hollobone. I too congratulate the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) on securing the debate. We have a shared history as councillors in London and as parents of young children, so this issue is close to our hearts. I will touch on the recent history of school place provision in London, outline some of the emerging challenges that I hear about in my constituency—especially, as the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) mentioned, the emerging challenge in respect of SEND places—and briefly make some suggestions that the Department may find helpful in resolving those challenges.
When I was first elected as a councillor in Hillingdon just over two decades ago, the council was seeking to open a new school, which is thriving today as Ruislip High School. It was built on green-belt land, and local residents were concerned because they recalled that, just a decade or so earlier, the council had closed Southbourne Secondary School in south Ruislip, not far from the new school, because at that time there was a massive over-supply of school places.
There has been a long history in the capital of variations in the number of children, which goes through cycles. When my local authority engaged with the Building Schools for the Future programme, under my leadership as cabinet member for education, it was a condition of Hillingdon’s entry that at least one secondary school per constituency be closed to reduce excess capacity. By the time we were a year or so into that programme, we looked at it again with a view to increasing places significantly, because the live birth data supplied by the NHS demonstrated that the demand for places, although relatively low in the immediate future, would rise rapidly.
The need to plan strategically has been a current issue in all our constituencies for a good long time. The number of pupils grew swiftly following the late 2000s financial crash, hit a peak following a massive expansion in school capacity across the capital, and has begun to tail off in recent years. That initial expansion of school capacity across the capital was primarily led in its early years by local authorities, which fulfilled their statutory duty to ensure that every child who wants and needs a school place can be offered one in their local area.
As time has moved on, we have seen increasing reliance on central control from the Department for Education, as additional capital funding has been moved from local authorities and expansion funds have instead been primarily routed through the free schools programme. A welcome feature of that programme is the significant increase in the number of children attending schools that are good or outstanding, which we often hear Ministers talk about. The fact that the funding was restricted over that time to schools that were already good or outstanding has been positive, as it ensured that in-demand schools could expand, but the reduction in the number of places creates a challenge because the geographical concentration of the surplus places is different from where demand is.
With some of the schools that have been expanded—in and around my constituency and serving some of my constituents I know of schools such as John Locke Academy, Lake Farm Park Academy and St Martin’s—the local authority built the school, ran a bidding process to find a free school provider to deliver the education in it, and ensured that the additional places, when they were required, were delivered on time and on budget in the locations where there was a great deal of demand. Those schools continue to thrive to this day.
When it comes to the emerging challenges, London Councils has done some excellent work to highlight not just the impact that we all hear about as constituency Members of Parliament but what they mean across the capital. Over the same period of time as pupil numbers have been dropping, we have seen a number of changes to the schools funding formula, which has tightened so that there is comparatively much less scope today for a local authority and the schools forum of local schools that work together to support schools with declining numbers—unless there is clear evidence that the surplus places will be used again within the next three years.
Local authorities that use birth data and child-registration data from the local NHS tend to have extremely good visibility of what the numbers are, but by its very nature that data is limited to the point at which the child is born at a local hospital or registered with a local GP as a new mover into the area. Broadly speaking, therefore, we are talking about a five-year time horizon for when we can be accurate about that.
As the hon. Member for Vauxhall alluded to, there has been much debate about why the child population of the capital has been reducing. The data from the Office for National Statistics clearly shows that there is a reducing birth rate, which is having an impact. Anecdotally, schools have told me that increased family mobility as people seek bigger homes outside the capital at affordable prices, and Brexit in locations with a high level of rental accommodation that was regularly occupied by families from the European Union who are no longer coming here, have had an impact on the numbers of children coming through their doors. But the challenges are manifesting not just in inner London: those of us in the suburbs are seeing a significant impact. For example, according to London Councils figures, in the London Borough of Hillingdon we are seeing a decline of around 15% in overall numbers—one of the highest rates in outer London.
Why does this matter? Why does this situation create such a challenge, given that these things are part of the normal warp and weft of population change? Looking at the figures, it is fairly clear that the funding formula, whereby almost all the money a school receives comes based on pupil numbers on a per capita basis, means that a class needs to be full or nearly full to break even.
Let us take the example of two schools in my constituency: Cannon Lane Primary School in Harrow, and Bishop Winnington-Ingram Church of England Primary School in Hillingdon. According to Department for Education figures, Cannon Lane receives £4,249 per annum per child and Bishop Winnington-Ingram receives £4,816. It costs around £60,000 with on-costs to put a teacher in the classroom, and two teaching assistants on top of that are a further £60,000 with on-costs. A share of the school’s overheads will pretty quickly get us to £150,000 to £180,000, meaning we can quickly understand that if a school does not have a nearly-full class, the amount of money coming in per child will not add up to enough to break even for the school’s budget.
Schools that face significant demand for places, but where that demand is less than is needed to fill a class, are going through a process of reducing their planned admission number or PAN—the stated capacity of the school.
Munira Wilson
The hon. Gentleman is making a well-informed speech. On that point about pupil admission numbers, it is my understanding—I am happy to be corrected—that if a school has a published plan of 60 and 45 parents put down that school as a first choice, those 45 places have to be granted and therefore the school has to open two classes, even though it is only one-and-a-half classes full. As a result, the school ends up with the shortfall in cash that the hon. Gentleman has outlined.
Does the hon. Gentleman think that, as well as some of the strategic planning powers I talked about for local authorities, there needs to be an interim measure whereby the Department for Education provides some sort of additional funding or grant for those classes that are not full? Schools in my constituency are asking parents for money for glue sticks and to be in sports teams, and are cutting teaching assistants because they are struggling so much financially.
David Simmonds
The hon. Member makes a good point. We also see the converse of the situation in which a school has fewer applications than it has places, and this creates additional pressure on places: rather than maintaining a PAN of 60 with 45 applications, a school makes a decision to reduce its PAN to 30, which means that 15 children who want to be in that school but do not have a place are put somewhere else in the system. I will discuss later a way in which we might be able to address that.
Within the context of reducing pupil numbers, we are consequently seeing significant localised pressure on school places where local authorities are still having to look to expand schools to meet demand. There has always been a need for some spare capacity—5% was the traditional rule of thumb to allow for normal fluctuations —but because we have seen the loss of many of the strategic levers that local authorities could use for planning that, we now see a hotch-potch of situations in which some schools remain under acute pressure to find capacity for more children while others relatively close by struggle for numbers and reduce their planned admissions number.
From a parent’s perspective, everything seems absolutely fine if their child is the one that gets into their school of choice. If that school has reduced its planned admissions number from 90 to 60, but their child is one of those 60, that is fantastic. But if someone’s child is one of the 20 that cannot get in, they are displaced to a school that is not of their choice. That situation creates unhappy children and a financial challenge for the system, which tries to find another place for the children to go.
None of this is helped by the fact that although councils have no control over the dedicated schools grant—the ringfenced budget that funds schools—it is still legally part of councils’ budgets, so a duty is imposed on them to ensure that over a period of time the dedicated schools grant breaks even. I know Ministers have been working on that with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, which has overall responsibility.
We see the converse of this challenge in respect of SEND places. The Timpson reforms represented an enormous transformational change in the approach to SEND education across the whole country. The downside is that the huge expectations that were raised by the reforms—particularly the extension to the mid-20s of the age entitlement for young people to access education and training—did not come with sufficient funding to ensure that they were delivered in reality. That is one reason why we see such enormous pressure on SEND in the capital.
Audit data from the London boroughs on the children who are given education, health and care plans and those who have some form of diagnosis demonstrates that the decisions are entirely the right ones. The children are meeting the relevant tests and criteria for the NHS, educational psychologists and so on, so the levels of need are undoubtedly being correctly assessed. We can see councils across the capital—I certainly include in this Hillingdon and Harrow, which serve my constituents—that are enormously challenged by rising demand against a backdrop of the reforms not being funded in line with the expectations that families now reasonably have.
There are many small, specialist SEND providers in the capital—for example, Sunshine House in my constituency—that are very popular with parents. They can offer a very high-quality service, but they are also often extraordinarily expensive, with a single place funded by a local authority not infrequently costing in excess of £1 million a year per child.
The delivery of the additional capacity that we require has been quite slow in the centralised programmes compared with the council-led ones. In my constituency we have seen additional SEND place capacity created through the local authority, such as the Eden Academy and specialist resource provision at other schools, all delivered on time and on budget. But some of the larger free school programmes, which are to deliver the bulk of the additional places we need, are many years behind where they need to be. Although there might be good reasons for the delays—we all understand the period of covid—the reality is that they impose massive cost pressures on our DSG high-needs blocks.
Although safety-valve agreements are being reached at individual local authority level, we need to recognise that the failure of programmes to deliver places on time, even if they eventually arrive, is the main reason why we see such a high level of pressure on the DSG across London for SEND. We know that the in-borough SEND—the state school places—is significantly cheaper than the private sector provision, but the awaited reform of SEND financing cannot come soon enough to make sure that the cost pressures are eased and that parents and children’s expectations can be met.
Let me conclude with some ways forward. I know there has been some consultation on this matter, but my first ask of the Minister is that we look at the enhancement of local authority flexibility to allocate budgets much more strategically in order to ease the way forward, especially when schools go through a transition period of downsizing. Rather than a sudden step from 90 children down to 60, which has a huge impact on the ability of parents to get their kids into a school, as well as a major financial impact on the institution itself, we should smooth that process out and recognise the fluctuations in rising and falling demand.
My second ask is for greater powers for local authorities to strategically plan, recognising that in the context of falling rolls there are areas of growing demand, not just for SEND but mainstream as well. There is an urgent need to be able to direct the overall school-planned admissions number to ensure that the provision matches the demand in a local area.
My third ask is that we do not forget that London is likely to see its population increase again at some point in future. We know that our capital’s population is smaller at the moment than some of its past peaks, that the density of the population has been reducing and that the crowding has been dropping for decades, but it will almost certainly begin to rise again in due course. To facilitate that, multi-academy trusts should be prohibited from selling or disposing of any land or closing sites without the agreement of the local authority that has the legal duty for school places in the area.
I finish by thanking London Councils, and in particular the leader of one of my local authorities, Councillor Ian Edwards, who is the lead member for children’s services at London Councils, along with the officer team that have been supporting him. I place on the record my thanks to the leaders and members in Harrow and Hillingdon, particularly Councillors Hitesh Karia and Susan O’Brien, for their work. I also thank the hon. Member for Vauxhall again for securing the debate on this important issue.
On a positive note, this is an opportunity for us to thank the teachers and councils of London for the work they have done to ensure that this remains, to this day, one of the best cities in the world in which to get an education.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. To make sure we can get everyone in, we will have a formal seven-minute limit on speeches.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) on securing this debate and on her thought-provoking opening speech. Her personal reflections remind us all that children are at the heart of this. They only get one go at a primary and secondary education. It is up to us and the Government to ensure that their experience at school is as positive as it possibly can be. It is so important that we discuss this particular issue: it has already been said that it is very much an issue in Lambeth, and I see the particular pressure there, but we are also experiencing it in the outer boroughs of Richmond and Kingston.
I am pleased to be able to put forward my concerns and those of my constituents regarding the financial sustainability of schools across London in the light of falling pupil numbers. As has been said, schools throughout the capital have seen a significant decrease in enrolment in recent years due to the 17% decrease in the birth rate in London over the past decade, as well as shifts in local child populations following Brexit and the pandemic and their impacts on our local demographics.
For my constituents in Richmond Park, the resulting higher proportion of unfilled school places has resulted in a really worrying decrease in school budgets, which are determined on the basis of headcount rather than assessment of need; I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) for his very detailed speech setting out how these decisions are made and the impacts that they have. The Government must ensure that the quality of education and the wellbeing of our children do not decline along with the headcount. I am already hearing from primary and secondary school headteachers across my constituency that funding pressures are resulting in impossible decisions over which cuts to make.
One impact that I am seeing in the Richmond part of my constituency, which goes across the Richmond and Kingston boroughs, is that many of our primary schools are single form entry and have been for many years. When there are falling roll numbers in a single form entry school, it has a massively disproportionate impact on the budget, because, as the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner said, so much of it is allocated on a per-head basis. All the fixed costs do not decrease with the number of children on roll, so when schools are funded on a per-head basis, the impact on single form entry schools, of which I have a number in my constituency, is disproportionate. I would like the Minister to address that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
This debate is clearly about London, but I always come along to support Members, and I want to support the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) today. I apologise that I was not here at the beginning of the debate; I wanted to be, but I was speaking at another event and could not be here quicker.
The focus for me back home in my constituency is children with special needs. I have never in all my life seen as many children with special needs. I do not know whether that is because there is more recognition of those needs now, but money needs to be set aside for them. The reason I say that is quite simple: schools pave the way for instilling the qualities and skills that children require to better themselves for potential apprenticeships, further study and employment. Children are a treasure. We have a responsibility, and the Minister and Government have a responsibility, to make sure we do better for children and prepare them for the future. Does the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) agree?
Sarah Olney
It is always a privilege to take an intervention from the hon. Member. I do agree, particularly with his point about special educational needs.
Some headteachers in my constituency are having to make extremely difficult choices about how to allocate their reduced budgets, which are being cut because of falling rolls. Some are being forced to cut back on the number of teaching and support staff they employ, which has an additional impact on those with special educational needs or on the variety of subjects and extracurricular activities they offer. Others are not able to purchase essential classroom supplies or to fund pay rises for their hard-working teachers. Some cannot afford the necessary resources to support not only students with special educational needs, but the growing number of students who are coming to school with mental health and emotional challenges, which is an emerging cause for concern. A decline in pupil roll numbers that directly feeds a decline in school funding is only exacerbating those impacts.
Many parents and teachers in my constituency have written to me about the effects of the tightening school budgets. One primary school headteacher reached out to inform me of the difficulties of caring for children with special educational needs when they have limited funds. He said:
“Each school incurs a significant cost when enrolling a child with special educational needs, and while my own commitment to inclusive education for all will never be dampened, I am aware of school leaders who have been put in the impossible position of not being able to afford to support these children.”
One concerned parent wrote to me about a request from their children’s school for financial donations, just so that the school could
“maintain the basic services they provide.”
I have also received letters from children, with one schoolgirl writing to say:
“An example of schools needing more money was when my French teacher couldn’t provide any of the necessary worksheets because she had run out of money to use the school printer.”
I welcome the recent relaxation of the rules relating to which schools experiencing a decline in pupil numbers can benefit from a falling rolls fund, but, crucially, this does not make carving out the money for a fund any more affordable. I have spoken to councillors in my constituency, who tell me that having a falling rolls fund would only increase the financial pressure on all schools, including those without falling rolls, because it effectively moves money from schools with full rolls to those without. In the overall picture of the increasing and critical pressure on school funds, there is simply no spare funding for schools to help other schools in their area, however much they would like to and however committed they are to working together, which is a real feature of Richmond’s schools.
I want to touch quickly on the topic of empty classrooms, which we are seeing. The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner and my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) mentioned the decrease in the published admission number. The Government should give some thought to the potential upside of the situation and to what we might use some of those empty classrooms for. We could utilise them for community benefits, particularly wraparound childcare; the Minister will know from countless previous debates what a massive issue that is for families across the country, and particularly in London.
We could also use those empty classrooms for youth work, for which there is a growing demand from young people from all sorts of backgrounds, and for careers advice, which is a particular passion of mine. We should be introducing young people to the full range of opportunities that await them when they leave school. I hear from countless business groups that young people do not know enough about their industry. The Government should think seriously about using some of the classrooms that are becoming available for some of those opportunities.
Reduced enrolment numbers are also putting private childcare providers across London at risk of closure. The issue is compounded by other factors such as increased energy, food and staffing costs, as well as recruitment issues. In my constituency of Richmond Park, I was concerned to hear last month about the closure of Maria Grey Nursery School, a popular nursery in central Richmond. Many parents have expressed to me how deeply saddened they are to be losing this treasured institution, which has been a part of Richmond for several decades. Again, that is because of the lack of demand from local families.
We are seeing record falls in the number of childcare providers, with thousands of providers exiting the market each year. That adds to the pressure on London families, who—never mind the fact that childcare is increasingly unaffordable—find securing a place with a childcare provider increasingly difficult. Again, that is linked to the issue of lack of demand. It is essential to shore up—
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to take part in a debate under your chairmanship again, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) not just on securing this debate, but on her outstanding opening speech.
I will start with some local pleading. The Minister may be aware of the Avery Hill site, the former university campus in my constituency that was purchased to build the new Harris Academy school. The Minister’s officials do not need to rush; I am not expecting answers today. [Interruption.] Oh, they came prepared—well done! The Minister will recall—I may have written to him in the past—that my concern is about the provision of places, but the Government decided to go ahead with the scheme. It is now on hold, because we lost the contractor for whatever reason—we need not go into that today. I understand that the Department is reviewing schemes such as the Harris Academy. School rolls suggest that we have surplus places for the foreseeable future in Greenwich. My council reports a 10% surplus in year 7 places, and London Councils predicts that between now and 2027, demand for those places will go down by another 2.5%. If the Government are minded not to go ahead with that scheme, may I please have a discussion with the Minister about the future of the site? It is a very important one for my constituency.
On the issue of school rolls generally, I make the same points as everybody else. Because we fund schools by headcount, the impact of falling school rolls can be considerable; as hon. Members have said, it still costs the same to run the school. As one of my headteachers, who does not have a falling roll but has financial difficulties over the next three years, wrote to me:
“This is mainly due to increased salary and pension contributions of all staff, a significant increase in the number of pupils with complex needs who require additional adult support. We have over 20 children out of 400 who have Education Health Care Plans”.
That number is increasing and the needs of those children are becoming more acute. Schools are therefore facing financial difficulties because of factors other than falling rolls.
When a school roll falls, it is not necessarily the case that the costs for the school fall, and we need to have some flexibility around that. I will not elaborate on that, because many people have made excellent points on the issue; what I want to mention is that a big proportion of schools’ costs is staffing costs, which makes it difficult to be flexible when school rolls fall. The Government should not ignore that.
The other, wider issue for us in London is the cost of housing. Affordable housing that families can live in is being hollowed out in central London. That is an issue not just for school rolls, but for the economy. There are people being priced out of London who are essential for certain types of job. We have to address the issue of creating truly affordable rented social housing back where it used to exist, in places such as Southwark where I used to live. I used to play football with friends who went to Archbishop Tenison’s, because Lambeth is not far from Walworth. I remember those schools well, but the places we used to live in no longer exist.
That is the problem that we are facing in central London. We have privatised the provision of social housing. We have relied on private developers to deliver on social housing through planning gain. When we stopped local authorities building houses, we slowed the provision of social houses. Against the loss of those houses being sold, we have hollowed out large parts of London, which has very high land values for social housing. It is a problem not just for schools but for our economy, and it is something that we must address.
The Mayor is doing everything he can. Local authorities are trying to do as much as they can with the resources they have, but this requires a Government willing to step in and make the serious change we need if we are to address population decline in central London. The birth rate is down in London, but it is not down in the rest of the country; I urge the Government to look at the reasons behind that.
I will finish by urging the Government to consider the facts that everyone has set out in this excellent debate. I also ask the Minister to contact me about the Avery Hill site, if he is not going to go ahead with the school.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) on securing this debate and on her excellent opening speech.
What we are seeing unfolding right across London is a vicious cycle of soaring living costs and, as a consequence, falling budgets for local authorities and schools. My hon. Friend pointed to London’s 17% decline in the birth rate, which accounts for 23,000 fewer babies in our capital. That crisis is most acutely felt in inner city boroughs such as ours, Lambeth. Yes, it is true that lifestyles are changing and some people are choosing to have fewer kids, but those who want more cannot afford to have them. Even if they could afford them, they cannot afford the size of house to put the kids in.
Since 2001, our borough has seen a 10% drop in households with at least one school-age child. I am sure other Members visit their schools, as I do. I really enjoy speaking to the wonderful children in my constituency; they always have the best questions. As other Members were speaking, I was thinking that if schools continue to close, I will have to spend a lot more time with all of them instead of with the wonderful children in my constituency. That is really sad, because they really are the best of us, and they show us why we continue to do the work we do here.
Since schools mainly receive cash per pupil, empty desks mean debts. Debts leave schools and local authorities with little choice in practice, given wider budget constraints. Teachers and staff end up losing their jobs; their families are then affected in a vicious cycle. After a decade of austerity, there is nothing left to cut. That is why we face the closure of two of our 19 state-funded schools in Lambeth: St Martin-in-the-Fields High School for Girls in Dulwich and West Norwood, and Archbishop Tenison’s in my hon. Friend’s constituency of Vauxhall.
This is personal for me, as it is for my hon. Friend, because it is happening in Lambeth, but also because my brother went to Archbishop Tenison’s and my sister went to St Martin-in-the-Fields. I spent a lot of time there because my mum was always insistent that we went to each other’s school events—as the youngest, I certainly enjoyed visiting theirs more than they enjoyed coming to mine, but we spent a lot of time in those schools. Being older than me, they were lucky to get a place in Lambeth at the time, because we had a serious shortage of secondary school places. A lot of the kids in our borough had to go to school out of borough.
When academies came in, although there was a lot of scepticism, people were happy that we were getting more schools in our constituency. We did not think it would create a situation in which some academy chains seemed to be given licence to build—we do not understand why—and allowed to increase their numbers. We did not think that that would affect schools that have been in our area for such a long time. Usually, when we hear about schools closing in Lambeth, it is because they are bad schools. These two schools are not bad. They have been the finest in our area for a very long time.
At the root of the issue is the problem of soaring housing costs, but the Government refuse to give us in London the powers we need to tackle them. We often hear Government Members talking about the “metropolitan liberal elite” and making off-coloured gibes about north London Labour MPs, but inner-city London boroughs continue to experience some of the highest levels of child poverty anywhere in the UK. The latest data from End Child Poverty shows that 29.9% of children living in my constituency of Streatham were growing up in poverty last year—that is 7,465 children. The data also shows that 35.5% of children in Lambeth, the borough my constituency is in, were growing up in poverty last year—that is 21,812 children. This is in one of the richest cities in the entire world. It does not exactly scream “metropolitan liberal elite”.
Housing costs are arguably the largest driving factor behind all of this. They are people’s biggest expense. At the heart of the debate is the question of who our city is for: is it a place for families to make their home, or is it a playground for the rich? I will point to a few solutions, focusing particularly on housing.
We need to enhance renters’ rights. Average monthly rents in London have risen above £2,500 for the first time. The Government should be using the Renters (Reform) Bill to close the eviction loopholes and give the Mayor of London power to control private rents. We need a higher proportion of genuinely affordable housing for new build developments, not this dodgy definition of 80% of the market rate, which is not affordable for people in my constituency or for most people across London. We need to get empty homes into circulation, as well as a mass council house building programme. I am glad that the next Labour Government have committed to 100,000 social homes, considering the Conservatives clearly had no plans to build homes, let alone affordable ones.
I heard about a time, way back when, when public sector workers used to get favourable rates on mortgages or even get accommodation to help them. When I think of all the public sector workers who are being priced out with their families, that is something that we should look towards. They should absolutely be paid more and, given what they are doing, we need to keep them in London, but they are all being pushed right out. We need school funding levels to increase and to keep pace with inflation. We need to give local authorities responsibility for in-year admissions, as has been set out in the schools White Paper, and the power to direct all schools to accept local children. They should be given the power to manage academies’ reduction of PAN or closure. That is really important.
Loads of people point to how growing up in the country was lovely. I am sure it was—they have a lot of hay fever and such—but I loved my childhood growing up on Brixton Hill in London. Being able to live in this fantastic city as a child made me who I am, and I am really sad that if we do not fix some of these policies, children will not have the wonderful experiences that I had.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Hollobone, and to follow such excellent speeches, particularly from my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) for bringing us this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), who I worked with during my relatively short career as lead member for education; he has had a long and distinguished career, both in Hillingdon and at the Local Government Association, and his expertise has really added to the debate. I also thank London Councils and Hounslow’s school organisation and access to education department for their briefings.
This is an incredibly important issue for schools, especially as they have faced so many challenges both pre and post covid. Having recently met a group of secondary school headteachers in Hounslow, I know only too well the issues they face. The top issues that they brought to me were school staff leaving in record numbers, the difficulty of recruiting new staff, especially maths teachers, and the difficulty of retaining experienced staff to go up the management ladder in education. They also addressed the lack of specialist support for children with SEND and the huge funding black hole. Those issues, especially the funding challenges, are the direct impact of 13 years of Conservative rule. Just recently, the chair of a board of governors and a large number of parents from just one primary school wrote to me about the impact of funding cuts on them. They make a difficult job even harder for our schools and their staff.
On school closures and pupil numbers, Hounslow borough is seeing a decrease of over 5% in year 7s, and a 10% decline in reception recruitment is expected over the next three years. There has been a particularly strong decline in primary places. Hounslow is having to cut the size of many local schools. It is taking out 25 classes and 850 places over the last, current and next school year.
Before I cover the impact that those issues will have, it is worth considering what is causing the decline. As others have said, the main cause is the housing crisis across London. More and more families are having to move out of London. I was recently contacted by an NHS worker who was unable to find someone from whom she could rent a home locally. She has two young children. She learned that the landlords of the few flats she could afford were not prepared to rent to a family with young children; that is just one example of a London-wide crisis. Working people with young children who can just about get on the housing ladder can do so only outside London, so if they can move out of London, they do. Not only schools but the NHS and businesses have told me that they are struggling to find staff who can afford to live in our city. It is in that context that we are seeing such a decline in school places, and in the number of children on school rolls, across London.
This debate is as much about the housing crisis as it is about schools, but there is another issue raised with me by heads and others: their concern for the increased number of children—we do not know how many—who may still be in London but are not registered in any schools. While many of them may well be being home-educated quite well by their parents, there could be many others who are not. The Government and local authorities have no way of knowing who or where those children are, or how many of them there are. I would like to know what plans the Government have to address that concern.
I will move on to the impact that this contraction in numbers has on our schools. It makes it harder for local authorities to plan school places, particularly as voluntary-aided academies and free schools sit outside the schools organisation system. I look forward to hearing how the Government aim to address that anomaly. As others have said so eloquently, the uncertainty around school numbers puts schools under even greater financial pressure, over and above what they face anyway.
I will also raise another challenge faced by schools in Hounslow and across London, which is the sheer number of in-year applications. That started especially with the generosity with which local families opened up their homes to families fleeing Ukraine, but in our case, the numbers are also affected by Home Office decisions to stand up local hotels as accommodation for asylum seekers; I think we had 11 such hotels in Hounslow at the last count. Then there is the other challenge—the other side of the coin: when those hotels are stood down and emptied by the Home Office, usually with a week or two’s notice, those children disappear from our area.
Hounslow received 4,500 in-year school applications last year. It is incredibly difficult for schools to plan when those applications have to be managed under the published admission number system and census system. We are talking about children from Ukraine, Afghanistan and Syria, and asylum seekers from all over the world. Many of those children have additional needs. While schools are providing support, it comes at a cost that they are not compensated for. Not only is there the lack of English language skills—schools need to get those children up to speed quickly on their spoken, written and listened-to English—but there is need for SEND support. Many of the children are suffering from trauma. Sometimes students—even secondary students—arrive in school mid-year, mid-school career, having never been in formal education. My second question is: will the Minister address the in-year challenge for all local authority officers, and the fact that non-maintained schools are outside the systems? I hope that the Government are listening, and will support schools, students and parents in addressing those challenges.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) on securing this important debate, and thank her for inviting me to a brilliant school in her constituency earlier this week to see at first hand the impact of falling pupil numbers, and the knock-on impacts on other schools and the community at large. As Members have outlined, those impacts are not to be ignored. Schools with long, rich histories are closing. School leaders and staff have to deal with the uncertainty of not knowing whether their job will exist come September. Parents and children have to cope with the uncertainty of their school potentially shutting.
We have had a range of helpful and insightful speeches and interventions today. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall spoke with passion and expertise about issues faced by not only her constituents but schools across London. She rightly spoke about the impact on parents’ choice, the need for schools to co-operate and work in partnership with other schools and the local authority, the impact of people being priced out of London, and why finding solutions to those challenges is vital for children and their life chances.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) made insightful comments about the challenges faced by schools in his constituency, especially around SEND places. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) made similar points, which were hugely helpful. My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) made helpful points about the need for truly affordable social homes in London, and the poverty that many communities in the capital face. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) spoke powerfully about the implications of falling rolls on the workforce, and on recruitment and retention; I thank her for her contribution.
As has been highlighted, falling pupil numbers and school closures affect not just London. They are impacting different parts of the country at an increasing rate. Recent analysis by The Guardian showed that more than 90 English primary schools are to close or are at risk of closure because they are more than two-thirds empty. A quarter of those at-risk schools are in rural villages, and one in six is in a more isolated part of the country. As Members have said, the problem is most pronounced in urban centres; nearly half of at-risk schools are in cities and towns.
While school closures are threatened across the country, it is in London that the problem is most urgent. The total number of primary school pupils in London schools has dropped by over 23,000 since before the pandemic. There are many reasons for that. First, the falling birth rate, in part caused by the rising cost of housing and the cost of bringing up children, is a major factor. Also, some families have left London in recent years, particularly following the pandemic. Research suggests that a further 2.5% of primary school pupils left for private or home education last year. Many attribute that to the growing number of children struggling with their mental health or not getting the support that they deserve. The same could be said for the increasing number of children with SEND whose parents have taken them out of the school system all together.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall said, most school funding is per pupil, so when numbers start to fall, a school’s overall funding falls. The Government rightly changed the rules recently so that all schools are eligible for funding to help manage declining pupil numbers. Association of School and College Leaders general secretary Geoff Barton said:
“Some small primary schools are barely financially sustainable as it is and any loss in pupil numbers is virtually impossible to absorb.”
Having spoken to school leaders, I know that the Government’s approach to school admissions is clearly a major factor. Instead of operating a logical system for school place planning, the Government have opted for a wild west approach. Instead of encouraging schools to co-operate, the Government incentivised them to compete. We have heard from Members about how perverse incentives have caused some schools to expand in areas where that is not needed, causing other schools nearby to close. We are talking not only about struggling schools with poor track records, but good schools with long and rich histories closing their doors—schools that are tied to their communities and have a big impact on them. No one seems to be able to do anything about it.
Clearly, some factors are beyond the Government’s control, but a lot of issues could have been avoided. If we are to put children at the heart of the system, we must take a more careful look at what is going on. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) told me about the situation of the St Martin-in-the-Field High School for Girls in her constituency. Shortly before last week’s half-term break, staff and pupils were told that their school would close to most year groups from September, and completely from July 2024. That decision came as a terrible shock to the whole school and the wider community, of which the school has been a part for so many years. She pointed to the lack of any role for the local authority in school place planning over the past decade as being part of the problems that have led to St Martin being forced to close. The Government have continued to allow the expansion of some local schools to go unchecked, and local councils have no ability to intervene and stabilise school provision in order to protect schools that are at risk.
With falling birth rates, threats of school closures will increase. The Department for Education expects the number of pupils at state-funded schools to decline by 944,000 over the next decade, but as we have heard, the Government appear to have no long-term vision for dealing with that. Labour has been clear that we want all schools to co-operate with their local authority on admissions and place planning. We want governors’ and parents’ voices to be heard more consistently when it comes to discussion of the direction of local schools. We will not impose top-down structures, but we will demand collaboration and co-operation in the best interests of our children and the local communities that schools serve.
As Members have highlighted, even the threat of school closures can have a big impact on everyone in a school community. For school leaders, that threat can be incredibly stressful. Not only are they worried about their own job, but they feel responsible for their staff’s employment, and face pressure from parents who are rightly concerned about their children being forced to move school. Teachers in schools at risk are more likely to look for jobs elsewhere, which, during a teacher recruitment and retention crisis, can leave the at-risk schools in an even worse position. School closures also force children to leave the teachers and school support staff with whom they have forged relationships, the routine that they have grown comfortable with, and their friends.
The impact of declining pupil numbers on primary schools is already being seen. In the coming years, those reduced numbers will feed into secondary schools in London and across the country. Labour has been clear that we need a system in which schools are encouraged to co-operate for the shared benefit of teachers, parents and children, rather than compete at the expense of those involved. We need a Government who can deliver a long-term strategy to deal with the impact of the issue, not one who hope to kick the can down the road so that they do not have to address it.
Will the Minister outline the steps he is taking to promote the financial sustainability of schools with falling pupil rolls? What steps is he taking to ensure that schools co-operate on the issue, to their shared benefit? Finally, what is his Department doing to plan for the expected decline in pupil numbers and the impact that will have on schools across the country? I look forward to hearing his remarks and his answers to my questions. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall, and I restate my praise to her for securing this debate.
The Minister for Schools (Nick Gibb)
It is a pleasure to participate in yet another debate that you are chairing, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) on securing a debate on this important subject, and for opening it so clearly.
I am aware of the recent report by London Councils on managing surplus places, which highlights the key challenges facing London boroughs. Since the baby boom at the turn of the millennium, we have seen substantial growth in pupil numbers. The Government responded to that by supporting the creation of almost 1.2 million new school places since 2010. In addition to our investment in the free schools programme, the Government have committed over £14 billion of capital grant funding to support local authorities in building new mainstream school places between 2011 and 2026. It is the largest investment in school capacity in at least two generations, and includes £3.5 billion for London alone.
I can recall many debates on the “Today” programme with my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), back when he represented the Local Government Association, about whether there were enough school places in London; it was almost an annual event for us—and here we are today. As we have seen, population trends do change. In London, the number of young people is falling faster than elsewhere. This is for several reasons, including decreasing birth rates, changes in international migration patterns since the UK’s exit from the EU, and more families relocating outside of London since the pandemic, as my hon. Friend explained so well.
The Government recognise the crucial role that local authorities play in planning local services for their community and championing the interests of children. Local authorities are legally responsible for ensuring that there are enough school places in their area. It is for local authorities, working with academy trusts and other local partners, to balance the supply and demand of school places in line with changing demographics. They have done so for many years. The uncertainty regarding future demographic changes means it is even more prudent for local authorities to remain flexible.
Ruth Cadbury
I am grateful for the Minister’s remarks about the role of local authorities. Will he admit that the free schools programme over the last 10 or so years made it very difficult for local authorities to plan school numbers? Back then, during a time of growth, we desperately needed a mixed, non-faith school between Chiswick and Hounslow for the whole of the Isleworth and Brentford area, yet the resources were taken by a free faith school, and a large proportion of its catchment came from a long distance away. Had the local authority been able to broker that decision, we might have had a more locally approached solution. Now we have declining numbers, and I am raising the contrary issue.
Nick Gibb
I understand the point the hon. Member is making, but free schools have been crucial in raising standards in our school system. The issue was not just numbers, but what we could do to deliver standards. I can think of a school in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) that opened in 2018 and was in January judged as outstanding. These are important factors to take into account. This is about quality as well as numbers.
Some spare capacity should be retained in the system to manage shifting demand, provide for parental choice and support the effective management of the admissions system. Local factors should be carefully assessed, along with considerations of quality, diversity and accessibility of local provision, and the forecast demand for places, in determining the most appropriate approach in each area. Local authorities are well placed to do that. They have seen periods of decline, bulges and shifts in local patterns before, and have shown they are adept at managing them.
The Department expects local authorities to work collaboratively with their partners to ensure that they are managing the local school estate efficiently and reducing or re-purposing high levels of spare capacity, to avoid undermining the educational offer or financial viability of schools in their area. I know that local authorities, together with trusts, are already considering a range of options for the reutilisation of space. That includes, for example, co-locating nursery provision, as well as options for reconfiguration, including via remodelling, amalgamations and closures where this is the best course of action. Lambeth has rightly been proactive in addressing this issue and is consulting on reducing the capacity of eight primary schools.
The Department continues to engage with local authorities on a regular basis to discuss their plans and potential solutions. One solution is the support and benefits obtained from being part of a strong and established multi-academy trust. The Department believes that all schools should be in strong families of schools, benefiting from the resilience that that brings and the support of the best in the group. That is why, over time, the Department would like all schools to be in a strong multi-academy trusts. By centralising operational and administrative functions, schools within a MAT can save time and money, which can be reinvested directly into areas that have the greatest impact.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall referred to housing issues, as did a number of other Members, including the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), who has just intervened. The provision of affordable housing is part of the Government’s plan to build more homes and provide aspiring homeowners with a step on to the housing ladder. Our £11.5 billion affordable homes programme will deliver thousands of affordable homes for both rent and to buy across the country. For London, £4 billion has been allocated, to deliver much-needed affordable and social housing in the capital. Since 2010, we have delivered over 632,000 new affordable homes, including over 440,000 affordable homes for rent, of which over 162,000 are for social rent. In fact, more than a fifth of overall delivery between April 2010 and March 2022 was in London, with over 89,000 homes for rent.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Can the Minister please outline how he defines “affordable” and why, if the homes are “affordable”, so many of my constituents find themselves unable to afford them?
Nick Gibb
That question is for another debate, I suspect, especially as I have only six minutes left; I would love to debate that issue with the hon. Member on another occasion. However, we are absolutely aware of the concern and the problem, which is why we are investing, as I said, £4 billion in affordable housing in London alone.
Although the challenge facing mainstream schools is evident, it is important to recognise that there is still a need to increase the supply of places, particularly for children with special educational needs and disabilities—a point made by the hon. Members for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) during this debate.
The number of children with SEND continues to increase in London, providing local authorities with an opportunity to think creatively about how to organise and structure high-needs provision alongside or within mainstream schools. Some £400 million of the £2 billion in additional funding for schools announced in the autumn statement will go to local authorities’ high-needs budgets and we are investing £2.6 billion in capital funding between 2022 and 2025 to help to deliver new school places for children with special educational needs.
Across London boroughs, councils will work with schools and the wider community to find alternative solutions to closure wherever possible. However, the school estate needs to be managed efficiently, which sometimes means reducing or repurposing high levels of spare capacity, including through closure, where places are not needed in the long term.
I know that the hon. Member for Vauxhall is particularly concerned about two schools in Lambeth that are in different stages on the path to closure: Archbishop Tenison’s School and St Martin-in-the-Fields High School for Girls. Both have a rich history going back hundreds of years. Their trustees explored all the options available and came to the difficult decision to seek a closure, through mutual consent with the Department. I understand how troubling that will be for pupils and their families. School closures are always a last resort. When a school closure is proposed, the regional director will work in consultation with the local authority and trust to gather information and assess the options, with the Secretary of State taking the final decision on the closure of academies. Minimising disruption for children at these schools will always be the Department’s top priority.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) raised the important point about empty places when pupil numbers fall and the impact that has on school budgets. To support local authorities to meet their sufficiency duty, the Department for Education provides them with revenue funding for growth and falling rolls, through the dedicated school grant. From 2024-25, the Government will additionally give local authorities more flexibilities to support schools seeing a significant decline in pupil numbers, where these places will still be needed within the next three to five years. Local authorities will be able to use their growth and falling rolls funding allocations to meet the revenue costs of repurposing school places.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner requested a ban on academy trusts disposing of school land. Land and buildings are in fact held in trust, and the most common result of a closure is for the land and building to revert back either to the local authority or to the diocese if it was a Church school.
The hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) raised Avery Hill, which I would be very happy to discuss with him. The free schools programme has been pivotal in meeting the demand for places since 2010, and has provided thousands of good new places across the country. In 2022, pupils in primary and secondary free schools made more progress on average than pupils in other schools. I have already referred to the outstanding free school in Ealing, the Ada Lovelace Church of England High School, which recently received a very good Ofsted report.
The performance of schools within the Harris Federation is even more impressive. Harris is one of the strongest and most successful multi-academy trusts. It educates more than 40,000 children in 52 schools across London, and 98% of its schools have been judged either good or outstanding by Ofsted. The Department continuously reviews the viability of all schools in the free schools pipeline, and we are looking closely at all the arguments for and against the free school at Avery Hill. We will open the school only when we are confident that it will be good, viable, sustainable and successful.
I am proud of the work that the Government have done since 2010 to ensure that we have school places where and when they are needed. As population trends change in London and across the country, we will keep supporting local authorities and trusts to ensure that any changes to local schools come with minimal disruption to our children and young people.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank all Members who have spoken in the debate. The sense is that this issue will not go away—[Interruption.]
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. I am afraid that a Division has been called in the House. Does the hon. Lady wish to return in half an hour, or is she happy to end the debate now?
Florence Eshalomi
I am happy to end the debate now. I thank the Minister. I note that he has not answered any of my questions, so will he meet me?
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. I believe that there are two votes, so the sitting will be resumed at 4.27 pm. I am ending the debate without the question being put.
Hazaras in Afghanistan
(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
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the situation of Hazaras in Afghanistan.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to have this debate. I am also grateful to my constituents who have come to join me today. Hazaras from not just Peterborough but across the country are sitting in the Gallery, listening to the debate—the first, I think, in the Palace of Westminster devoted purely to the Hazaras and their situation in Afghanistan.
The Hazaras are one of Afghanistan’s largest ethnic groups. Exact numbers are unknown, as there has been no accurate census of the Hazara population, but some estimate it to be between 20% and 30% of Afghanistan’s population. They are predominantly, but not exclusively, Shi’a. The number is often disputed by the Hazara community themselves, who believe that they are underrepresented in order to be denied adequate funding and political representation.
For over a century, the Hazara community has suffered from targeted discrimination, persecution and massacres because of their ethnicity and religious sect. Identifiable by distinctive features, Hazaras cannot hide their ethnicity from aggressors. As early as the 1890s, about 60% of the Hazara population were slaughtered during genocidal campaigns. Those who survived were dispossessed of their land, displaced from their homes, with some even being sold as slaves. Oppression continued throughout the 20th century, as Hazaras were denied access to education and political rights. To this day, Hazara areas in Afghanistan remain some of the poorest parts of the country.
I am proud to be chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Hazaras. As I say, I have a number of Hazara constituents in the great city of Peterborough. The community there is growing, with over 140 Hazara families living in my city. They have an amazing community centre called the Peterborough Afghan Shia Association —or PASA—to help residents with numerous issues. They are a real asset to my city. That is why this debate is so important to me personally. It is paramount that we raise awareness of and stand up for minorities such as the Hazaras in Afghanistan.
The Hazara community in Peterborough are not just any community; they are our neighbours, our co-workers and our friends. They have been targeted in Afghanistan in places of worship, over cultural festivals, in sports clubs, at wedding ceremonies, at hospitals and schools, during peaceful protests, on public transportation and in the streets. For example, on 8 May 2021, a Hazara girls high school was attacked in Kabul, killing over 100 students and injuring over 160 others. On 19 April 2021, two other Hazara schools were attacked in Kabul, again killing 126 students and injuring 60. Two days later a Hazara mosque was attacked in northern Afghanistan, killing more than 50 worshipers and injuring hundreds more. On 30 September 2022, at attack at an education centre killed more than 60 female Hazara students and injured over 100. Those are just a few examples of attacks against Hazaras in Afghanistan over the last few years. Unfortunately, that is the tip of the iceberg, and it is something that the Hazara community have to live with each and every day in Afghanistan.
The persecution of the Hazaras has continued into the Taliban era, but it has been around for a lot longer than that. Thousands of Hazaras were killed in massacres during the civil war, as they were under the Taliban Government. Since the takeover of Afghanistan, again by the Taliban, in August 2021, the plight of the Hazaras has only increased.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate forward and thank him for being a champion—I use that word honestly because it is the right one—in this House for the Hazaras. Other debates he has secured in Westminster Hall have been an indication of that. The Hazaras have long faced discrimination and violence. When the Taliban were last in power the Hazaras faced targeted violence. They fled to Iran and Pakistan for safety, such was their fear of what would happen to them or their families if they remained. The Taliban’s restrictions disproportionately affect women from religious minorities. As chair of the APPG for international freedom of religion or belief, I have spoken for the Hazaras before, and I would do so again. I commend the hon. Gentleman, and I also suggest that what he is doing—what we in this House are doing—today is being a voice for the Hazaras, and for their community here.
Paul Bristow
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention; today is just the start. This is the first dedicated Commons debate on the issue, but we have raised questions on it before. I want to work with Members such as the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin)—and others too—so that we can end the suffering. I hope that this is just the start of an extended campaign to protect Hazaras in Afghanistan.
Hazaras face suicide attacks, forced displacement, torture and even execution. Those displaced people then have to make the harrowing journey, as the hon. Member for Strangford said, to find safety in other countries in the region and in Europe. To date, however, not a single perpetrator has ever been brought to justice, and the attacks against the Hazaras have been allowed to go on without punishment. Enough is enough; this cannot continue.
Action is required to thoroughly investigate these crimes, bring perpetrators to justice and take further steps to protect the Hazara people in Afghanistan. Alongside colleagues and external advisers, I was part of the inquiry into the situation of Hazaras in Afghanistan, which was published last year. In its report, there were numerous recommendations for the United Kingdom Government, as well as the International Criminal Court and the UN. The recommendations to the Government were:
“Monitor the situation of the Hazara, collect and preserve the evidence of the atrocities…Conduct an inquiry into the issue of sexual violence against the Hazara in Afghanistan…Recognise the specific targeting of the Hazara in Afghanistan and their vulnerability as a result (including for the purposes of asylum resettlement to the UK under”
the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. The report also recommended that the Government:
“Assess the situation and identify a comprehensive response plan, including in accordance with the UK’s duties under the Genocide Convention…Assess whether and how the Hazara communities have access to humanitarian aid provided by the UK…Ensure that the UK Aid provided to Afghanistan researches the Hazara communities…Engage in a dialogue with Afghan-neighbouring countries to ensure that the Hazara fleeing persecution in Afghanistan are provided with assistance and not returned to Afghanistan…Impose the Magnitsky sanctions against all those responsible for the atrocities…Call upon the Taliban-run ‘caretaker government’ to ensure that all atrocities against the community are investigated and the perpetrators are brought to justice…Provide capacity assistance to help with investigations and prosecutions of the perpetrators.”
We, along with the international community, have a responsibility to do whatever we can to protect and to bring about justice whenever we can.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing such an important debate. As mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the Hazara community has long faced persecution and attacks in Afghanistan. I represent a large Hazara community in Coventry North West, and I understand how the group has been overlooked and forgotten in the broader understanding of Afghanistan and the wider region. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government must heed the recommendations of the UN special rapporteur’s report regarding the protection of the historically persecuted Hazara community?
Paul Bristow
I agree with the hon. Lady. We should pay absolute attention to recommendations from the UN and others, to ensure that we end the persecution of Hazaras and bring about a decent resolution for that community. We and the international community have a responsibility to do whatever we can. The report’s recommendations are a good start in achieving that, and there was considerable value in producing it—something that is underlined by a number of references made to it by other Parliaments around the world and by the Hazara community itself.
The Hazara community is now finally getting a voice internationally, after many years of suffering at the hands of the Taliban and other extremist groups without there being the same sort of awareness of these atrocities. Last week, I spoke remotely at an event held in the Canadian Parliament, organised by the Hazara community in Canada. This is not just a UK fight; it is an international fight, where Hazara communities across the world can unite to press for justice. The seminar was hosted by Members of the Canadian Parliament and its aim was to discuss the ongoing atrocities in Afghanistan, with a particular focus on human rights violations against Hazaras.
Those are positive steps, but they are not enough. The persecution of these people cannot continue. We must use our diplomatic channels and foreign aid budget in a targeted way specifically to assist Hazaras as well as other persecuted minority groups. Crimes against the Hazara in Afghanistan may, because of the intention to eliminate their culture, faith and way of life, constitute genocide. Given the severity, there is a case for something like the independent tribunal into crimes against the Uyghurs, which was chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice KC, to be established and to examine the evidence regarding Hazaras in Afghanistan.
Whatever happens, we cannot walk away from our responsibility to this great people. There has been silence for too long, but I am determined to continue working with other members of the all-party parliamentary group, and with those in the Hazara community in my city and beyond, to ensure that this does not continue.
Lastly, I would like to put on record my tribute to the Hazara community—a community I did not know a great deal about before I became a Member of Parliament, to be honest. I have made some fantastic friends over the past couple of years in my constituency and through my involvement with the APPG. I hope we can continue to work together and to make a positive contribution to the Hazara community, some of whom are in the public gallery here today. You are no longer just my constituents —you are my friends.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I commend the hon. Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) for securing this important debate and for the work he and fellow MPs in the APPG do to protect and enhance the human rights and status of Hazaras around the world.
In the aftermath of the withdrawal of international troops from Afghanistan, violence against the Hazara population has escalated. With a long history of persecution, including by the Taliban, the threat of genocide is real.
It has been 10 months since the APPG published its excellent report, which documented human rights violations against the people of Afghanistan—in particular, the Hazara ethnic and religious group. According to Human Rights Watch, the Shi’a minority has been subject to suicide bombings, as well as sustained attacks on mosques, girls’ schools and workplaces. The Taliban leadership may have moderated its rhetoric to please the international community—it claims it will protect all ethnic groups—but it has done nothing to stem the growing number of crimes being committed by its fighters.
The only hope for the Hazara people is that the international community stays true to its commitment to human rights and pressures the Taliban into concessions. Although there are limitations on what we can do, the United Kingdom and the international community have a legal, moral and political obligation to protect the Hazara people. The UK Government should allocate resources to provide immediate humanitarian aid to the affected Hazara communities.
I assure my constituents from Hazara communities, and the Hazara community around the UK, that they are not alone. As the hon. Member for Peterborough said, this is only a start. I assure the Hazara people in Afghanistan that I and colleagues in this House will stand up for them and raise the issues that their communities face in these difficult times. They have my support. I also assure my constituents that they have my support and that they can come to me whenever they feel they need my support. I am there for them.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
It is a pleasure to serve on your watch, Mr Hollobone, in my second appearance in Westminster Hall today.
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) for securing the debate. I pay tribute at the outset to all his hard work in support of the Hazara people not only in the UK but internationally. We all recognise that, in his impressive chairmanship of the all-party parliamentary group, he is doing a great deal of good to advance this most important cause—that of the Hazara people.
I also thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who reliably intervened, as he does so often in these debates, in support of the oppressed, wherever they are around the world. I also thank the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi), who spoke eloquently in support of the Hazara people in a brief intervention, and the hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin), who made it clear that his support for the Hazara community and his knowledge of this issue are extensive and helpful.
I will try to respond to all the points raised during the debate, and I will start with the current situation. The Hazara people make up around 10% of the population of Afghanistan, and they are overwhelmingly Shi’a. They have historically been one of the country’s most persecuted groups and they have faced continued repression under the Taliban.
The UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan, Richard Bennett, has reported numerous serious human rights abuses committed against the Hazara people by the Taliban since August 2021, including summary executions, enforced disappearances, arbitrary arrests, torture and other ill treatment. He has documented how Hazaras have been forcibly evicted and have had their land expropriated, often with only a few days’ notice.
In September 2021 alone, at least 2,800 Hazara residents were forcibly displaced from 15 villages in the provinces of Daykundi and Uruzgan. When community representatives called for an investigation, they were arrested. The special rapporteur has reported a “clear trend towards Pashtunisation”, with the exclusion of minority groups from decision making and the failure of the Taliban to protect at-risk, predominantly Hazara institutions. There are also reports from the United Nations of an increase in inflammatory speech, both online and in mosques during Friday prayers, including calls for Hazaras to be killed.
The Hazara people have suffered a series of deadly attacks by Daesh and other terrorist groups. There was a horrific attack on the Kaaj educational centre last year, which killed dozens of young people and was outrightly condemned by my noble Friend the Minister for South Asia. The Taliban responded by expelling Hazara students from universities for planning protests against the attacks on their community. The Taliban have a duty to protect the whole population of Afghanistan for as long as they are in power, yet they are often the greatest source of the repression. The UK Government and Members across the House condemn them utterly for that.
I will turn now to the action the UK Government are taking. We closely monitor the human rights situation in Afghanistan and work with our allies to press the Taliban to respect the rights of all Afghans and protect Hazaras and other minority groups from terrorist attacks. We urge the Taliban to engage in a constructive dialogue with all parts of Afghan society and to establish inclusive governance. We raise our concerns about the Hazaras and other minority groups in the United Nations and other multilateral fora. In March we worked with the Security Council to renew the mandate of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan and to call for inclusive governance with meaningful participation of minorities.
We are also working closely with international partners to ensure that credible human rights monitoring and accountability mechanisms are in place. In October we co-sponsored a Human Rights Council resolution to extend the mandate of the United Nations special rapporteur. We are working with the international community to respond to the recommendations the rapporteur made to the council in his February report.
My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough took part in the cross-party Hazara Inquiry, and we are grateful to him and his colleagues for their report. It has done much to raise awareness of the plight of Hazaras in Afghanistan. In line with the report’s recommendations, we continue to monitor and document discrimination and abuses against Hazaras, both through the United Nations and other institutions, and through our own programme work. We have discussed aid distribution with our partners. The UN World Food Programme has told us that there is no evidence of systematic discrimination against Hazara people in aid distribution, but we will of course continue to monitor the situation. We continue to consider the other report recommendations and to discuss the most effective course of action with our international partners.
Ministers and officials engage regularly with a range of Afghans, including Hazaras, to ensure our policy and programming reflect the needs of the entire population. Our most recent contact with Hazara groups was between officials and a representative from the Hazara National Congress on 24 May. My noble Friend the Minister for South Asia last met UK-based Hazara groups in December, and we will continue to engage with the Hazara diaspora. We also provided a platform to Hazaras at the ministerial conference on freedom of religion or belief in July, which allowed them to raise awareness of the situation of Hazaras in Afghanistan and to exchange views with Ministers and policymakers from across the world.
I will conclude by emphasising that the British Government will continue to work closely with international partners to press the Taliban on our human rights concerns, including the treatment of the Hazara people. We will also continue to work to ensure credible monitoring and accountability mechanisms are in place, including by supporting the UN special rapporteur. It is a tragedy to witness the reversal of the human rights progress made in Afghanistan over the last 20 years. We will never compromise on our belief and insistence that all Afghans, regardless of ethnicity, religion or gender, should be free to play a full role in their communities, their economy and their governance. Without a more inclusive system, Afghanistan will not be able to progress and to fulfil the potential of its people.
Question put and agreed to.
Asylum-seeking Children: Hotel Accommodation
(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
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the accommodation of asylum-seeking children in hotels.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hollobone.
In preparation for the debate, I spoke to many organisations that support unaccompanied asylum-seeking children day in, day out. It was impossible not to be moved by some of their testimonies. A children’s rights officer at the Scottish Refugee Council shared this:
“All the children I worked with demonstrated little to no knowledge of systems in the UK prior to arrival, they were completely bewildered. They were also terrified, terrified of anyone they perceived to be in a position of authority. At times that included me, until they got to know me. One girl even asked me if I intended to send her back to her village, where she was at risk of female genital mutilation…
Another girl I worked with had been in Scotland for around two months when I received a call from the hospital asking me to attend, as she was very distressed. She was pregnant. As soon as the doctor left us alone, she broke down sobbing, asking me if the Home Office would kill her for being unmarried and pregnant.”
Those are just a couple of anecdotes, but they speak to the reality of life in the hostile environment for many highly vulnerable children who have reached our shores. Those anecdotes should shame UK Ministers who have used degrading language such as “asylum shopping” or “invasion” to describe people risking their lives for safety and refuge in this country. Many have experienced physical and sexual violence, persecution, torture, human rights abuses and extreme poverty. Their perilous journeys to the UK have exposed them to exploitation, human trafficking and modern slavery.
Two years ago, when the Home Office started to house unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in hotels, we were told that it was on a short-term, emergency basis until permanent placements could be found via the national transfer scheme. It should not be forgotten that such hotels are considered to operate unlawfully: under section 20 of the Children Act 1989, children under 16 should be in the care of local authorities, not in unregulated accommodation where they lack the same protections as other looked-after children. Children whom the Refugee Council in England has spoken to say that they feel anxious, frightened and lonely in the hotels, with no phone to communicate and clothes that do not fit them properly.
Since the Home Office took charge of the day-to-day care of unaccompanied children, at least 4,600 of them—some as young as 10—have been placed in such accommodation. We know that the number is rising, but up-to-date and accurate figures have been hard to come by.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady for securing the debate. She is making a powerful speech on an important topic. In January, at Prime Minister’s questions, I asked about the 200 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who were missing from Home Office-run hotels. Two months later, a response to one of my parliamentary questions stated that 186 of those children—some of the most vulnerable young people in the country—were still missing. Does the hon. Lady agree that if we as politicians are not safeguarding the most vulnerable children in the country, we are letting them down severely?
Deidre Brock
I absolutely agree. I will elaborate on this, but it is our moral and legal duty to assume responsibility for those children, and that has been sadly lacking from the Government and the Home Office.
In early April, the Children’s Commissioner for England requested data on the number of children in Home Office hotels since July 2021. I understand—I hope the Minister will bring us up to date—that the Home Office has yet to reply to that statutory data request. I believe that is unprecedented, so I will be very interested in whether the Minister can explain why that information has not been provided and when the Home Secretary will endeavour to do so.
Part of the issue is that the real number of children in the system is obscured by the visual age, or “glance”, assessment process. The Refugee Council report “Identity Crisis” highlights the cases of 233 children that it supported last year, 94% of whom the Home Office wrongly judged to be over 18. They were housed with adults, with no access to support or education and at clear risk of abuse and neglect. On top of that, last year the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration found staff at some hotels without Disclosure and Barring Service checks.
Shockingly, despite repeated warnings by the police that children would be targeted by criminal networks, the Home Office has failed to prevent hundreds from going missing, as the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) referred to. She mentioned the 440 occurrences that we know of and the 186 children who remained missing as of April 2023. Members from across the House have asked time and again about that, but have received little detail on what action is being taken.
The UK Government’s inability or unwillingness to guarantee the safety of those children has been condemned at home and abroad. More than 100 charities wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister in January calling for the Home Office to stop accommodating separated children in hotels, without delay. UN experts echoed that call in April, commenting that the UK is failing
“under international human rights law to…prevent trafficking of children.”
A report published by the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration in October last year recommended that a viable and sustainable exit strategy from the use of hotels should be delivered within six months. The Home Office has no exit strategy; instead, Ministers are doubling down. The asylum hotel accommodation system is becoming institutionalised, and the Illegal Migration Bill—or, as it is known by some, the refugee ban Bill—will empower the Home Secretary to accommodate even more children outside the care system.
Under article 22 of the UN convention on the rights of the child, children seeking refugee status must receive appropriate protection and humanitarian assistance, but the Illegal Migration Bill is effectively a ban on the right to claim asylum if the claimant arrived in the UK irregularly, such as through trafficking or modern slavery, regardless of their individual circumstances. It will create a two-tier system where the immigration status of refugee and asylum-seeking children overrides their rights as children in the UK. It has been said to me that, in the eyes of the Home Office, they are seen as illegal migrant first, everything else second.
Analysis by the Refugee Council based on publicly available sources and conservative estimates suggests that 45,000 children could be detained in the UK under the Government’s plans. Both the Children’s Commissioner and the chief inspector have warned about the pressure that that will put on local authorities in England to fulfil their duties under the Children Act.
The Bill also includes an attack on devolution, which is unfortunately becoming customary from the UK Government. Clause 19 gives the Home Secretary the unilateral power to extend the provisions to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on obtaining the debate and doing the research beforehand. What is her experience of the Home Office’s interaction with the devolved Scottish Government and local authorities in Scotland? In Wales, we have found its approach extremely disappointing—riding roughshod over devolution and not taking any notice of the way that we treat children in Wales.
Deidre Brock
I agree entirely. That has certainly been the experience of the many different organisations that I have spoken to in Scotland, and that is what they say to me. As always with this Government, the proposals that Scottish Ministers put to UK Ministers are often either ignored or not taken fully into account. Again, I hope that the Minister can assure us otherwise.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on obtaining the debate. Further to the intervention by the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), whose constituency neighbours mine, we have a specific issue in Carmarthenshire, where a hotel will be used to house asylum seekers without any consultation whatsoever with the local authority. The Welsh Government have a policy that Wales is a nation of sanctuary, and it is beyond my understanding why the UK Government would act unilaterally without discussion with the Welsh Government or Carmarthenshire County Council.
Deidre Brock
I was looking at a contribution by the Local Government Association, which I believe operates only in England, and that seems to be one of its bones of contention too, along with the fact that insufficient moneys are being provided to support the welfare of these children and other asylum seekers. Again, I hope that the Minister will address that point.
The Scottish guardianship scheme, run through the Scottish Refugee Council and the Aberlour charity, provides personal, sustained support for these children, and it is funded by and delivered on behalf of the Scottish Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), who will be winding up the debate for the SNP, has urged the UK Government to provide a similar scheme to support, in particular, young people in care in Scotland.
Clause 23 of the Illegal Migration Bill strips Scottish Ministers of their powers under the Scottish Parliament’s Children (Scotland) Act 1995 to support and assist victims of trafficking if those victims meet removal criteria, with very limited exceptions. Given that that clearly encroaches on devolved responsibilities, will the Minister tell us why the legislative consent motion process was not engaged? Scottish local authorities are responsible for caring for these children and treating them as they would other looked-after children. If there are credible indicators of exploitation or other issues, local authorities have obligations under Scots law to intervene. Under the European convention on human rights, Police Scotland and local authorities have a duty to protect, investigate and take people out of a trafficking situation, but that will clash with the requirements on Home Office officials to remove people.
Even if those powers are used sparingly, as the UK Government claim they will be, organisations and charities in Scotland remain terrified about the effect of moving responsibility to the Home Office and away from Guardianship Scotland, the scheme I mentioned that is delivered on behalf of the Scottish Government to all unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and survivors of child trafficking. The Scottish Refugee Council says that some of these children are so afraid of the Home Office that they are up the entire night before their interview, praying that they will not be removed or detained. The possibility of being taken into Home Office care, coupled with the closing down of asylum and trafficking protections, while the prospect of removal looms, will lead only to more children running away. That will be a powerful recruitment tool for traffickers, who might look like a preferable option over being deported to Rwanda or remaining in detention.
We in the SNP have said repeatedly that creating safe and legal routes is the only realistic way to disrupt the human traffickers’ business model. If the Home Office has no interest in creating an asylum system that is based on fairness and dignity, it should devolve the necessary powers to the Scottish Parliament to allow Scotland to do so.
In the meantime, we need answers from the Home Office, so I close with these questions. Will the Minister give us the latest figures on how many unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who went missing from Home Office hotels are still missing? Will the Home Office commit to publishing a written report on the circumstances surrounding those missing children, including immediate steps to prevent similar issues from happening again? Finally, will the Minister advise whether and how an order from the Home Secretary under clause 16 will supersede protective orders issued by the Scottish courts? As a signatory state to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, the UK needs to step up and meet its responsibility to uphold all children’s rights to protection, health and education.
The children’s rights officer from the Scottish Refugee Council whom I mentioned earlier recalled a boy from Afghanistan she had worked with through the guardianship service who was haunted by the image of his inconsolable mother saying goodbye to him. Rather than compounding the fear and trauma of children like him, we have a legal and moral duty to look after them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. The debate can last until 5.57 pm. I am obliged to begin calling the Front Benchers no later than 5.34 pm, so the four Members standing have just about half an hour between them. The guideline limits for the Front Benchers are five minutes for the SNP spokesman, five minutes for the Opposition spokesman and 10 minutes for the Minister, and then, hopefully, Deidre Brock will have three minutes at the end in which to sum up the debate.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Mr Hollobone, for calling me to speak; it is not often that I get called first, so this is a real pleasure.
I commend the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) for securing the debate. I spoke to her beforehand. She has a big heart and she brings forward issues that concern us. She referred to a moral obligation. I, too, feel that we have a moral obligation to deliver for those who seek sanctuary and help. I have been very clear and consistent in my approach to the refugee crisis and I will be equally clear today. It is a real pleasure to see the shadow spokespersons and the Minister in their places. I know that the Minister will try to address some of the questions that we will put his way.
As I said, I believe that we have a moral obligation to help those who are displaced in the best way that we can. I believe very much in the foreign aid budget and in giving a fresh start to women and children who have been oppressed and are in danger, or have left danger.
My heart is for the family unit. I am very much a family person; I focus on family. I understand that we cannot take the world in and that we must be selective about who comes to our country. I do not believe that limited capacity should be given to every young, single, fit man who is able to build a life safely in other countries. However, today’s debate is on a matter that is close to my heart—children who are in need of compassion, care and a decent standard of living.
There are not many people in the Chamber who will not be bothered by the subject of this debate when they see the photographs and the stories on TV. Indeed, in our constituencies, we experience the cases and hear the heartbreaking stories that the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith referred to.
Since June 2021, 4,500 unaccompanied migrant children, some as young as 10, have been placed in hotels. I was shocked to learn that some 440 children have gone missing from hotels and that, as of April 2023, 186 of those children still had not been found.
Child trafficking is the most horrible and destructive crime, committed by those who have no morals and no scruples about what they do, and it is not limited to third-world countries; it happens here daily. Data from the UK’s national referral mechanism for the year ending December 2021 showed an increase of 9% in the number of potential child victims being referred compared with the previous year—an increase from 5,028 to 5,468. That is a stark figure, and it should give us some focus.
It grieves me to think of a child coming from the frying pan of a war-torn nation, with the ravages that that brings with it, and seeking safety in our great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland only to become a victim of trafficking. We are under an obligation to prevent that from happening.
I believe that children in hotels must be treated in the same way as looked-after children in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. There must be accountability for their wellbeing. With the greatest of respect, I am not sure that children are currently being looked after to an acceptable standard. I seek the Minister’s assurance that that is the case, especially since children in Home Office hotels are not classed as looked-after children, which I suggest means that the appropriate protections and safety measures may not be in place. Prolonged stays in hotels have an impact on whether children will meet the 13-week rule for care leaver support once they move into local authority care.
I am conscious of the wee note that you sent me, Mr Hollobone; I will comply with your request and conclude. I commend the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith for bringing this issue forward. It must be addressed. I think that other Members, in their contributions, will add to our requests and to the concern that we have in our hearts for asylum-seeking children in hotels. I look to the Minister for a clear and concise strategy for these children, to fulfil our obligations as a nation that simply does the right thing. We have a chance to get this right. We must take that opportunity and deliver for the asylum-seeking children in hotels right across this great nation—this nation that reaches out and helps. I know that the Minister wants to help, but it is important that, through this debate, we receive the assurances that we seek and have our requests addressed.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hollobone. It is a particular pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who gave a typically eloquent and heartfelt speech. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) for securing this important debate and for her powerful introduction to it.
In July 2021, bypassing councils and operating outside the statutory national transfer system, the Home Office started using hotels to house unaccompanied children who have experienced unimaginable horror and upheaval coming to our country in search of safety. This was initially characterised by Ministers as an emergency measure and, as we have heard, since then there have been 447 missing episodes, and 186 children are still missing, according to figures revealed in a parliamentary question in April. A significant number of those children went missing from a hotel in Hove, which neighbours my constituency. Brighton and Hove prides itself on being a city of sanctuary, and the safeguarding crisis created by the Home Office remains a matter of profound concern to our community.
I shall touch on just three things: first, the lack of legal basis for this Home Office practice and regulatory failure; secondly, the Government legislation that makes matters worse; and thirdly, what safeguarding for these truly vulnerable children should really mean.
First, Brighton and Hove City Council has been raising concerns about the dangerous practice of using these hotels for the best part of two years, since Ministers first started bypassing councils. After months of obfuscation, on 24 January, when Mr Speaker granted my urgent question about the hotels and missing children, the Secretary of State did not even show up; instead, she sent the Immigration Minister, who again is here today. Meanwhile, as we have heard, multiple children’s charities have been clear that they consider there to be
“no legal basis for placing children in Home Office hotel accommodation”.
In April, UN experts called for the UK Government to
“put an end to the practice of placing unaccompanied children in hotels”.
While there has been a significant reduction in the practice in the first quarter of this year, shockingly, the Government are now legislating to provide a legal basis for hotel use to continue.
These hotels quite simply should not be used, and when they have been, serious safeguarding questions have gone unanswered. For example, earlier this year, I met both the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration—the ICIBI—and the Ofsted chief inspector. I raised the concern with both of them that the use of these hotels amounts to the Home Office running unregistered children’s homes with no inspection framework. I have since written to and questioned Ministers repeatedly to ask: if they persist in using these hotels against all the advice, will they at least consider an Ofsted-led inspection regime? As with many other important questions, the non-answer is that Ministers consider the best place for children to be a local authority placement—well, yes, it is, but the Government are not doing that. I have had yet another letter to that effect this week, which makes it clear that, in fact, they expect hotel use to continue. Indeed, Brighton and Hove City Council has just been warned that the Government may use the hotel in Hove again, despite the time that has been available for proper planning to avoid that. Will the Minister commit today to a full and immediate consultation with the local authority on all aspects of the scheme, including its legality, before any more children are placed there?
I sincerely hope that the steps the Government are taking to increase foster placements work, but I know from discussions with directors of children’s services that there is an acute national shortage of such placements, and we should not forget that, with their 13 years of cuts, that is something for which Ministers are also responsible.
As we have heard, the Government are now pushing through their unspeakably cruel and immoral Illegal Migration Bill, which breaks international law. It will strip children of their rights to claim asylum, legislate for the use of hotels, and increase the risk of children going missing. Like the Children’s Commissioner, and in concert with the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith, I am gravely concerned that, as a result of young people’s fear that they will be deported at age 18, potentially to Rwanda, unaccompanied asylum-seeking children will be more likely to go missing from care to avoid that, and therefore be at even greater risk of exploitation and abuse by traffickers.
I have asked Ministers what unaccompanied children are told about their rights when they are first placed in hotels. What will unaccompanied children be told now? Is it really the Minister’s intention to legislate to strip them of their asylum rights the day after they turn 18, when they could be put on a plane to Rwanda? Is that really what he intends?
Safeguarding surely means remaining shocked that the Home Office has been housing children without legal basis and that we still do not know where nearly 200 of those children are. I and other Members have repeatedly questioned the Minister about the need for a national dedicated operation to find them. His answers have not instilled confidence. On the contrary, the Government’s plan to degrade children’s rights even further will increase the risks.
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
After the hon. Lady’s debate, I invited her to visit the hotel in Hove that she says she is profoundly concerned about. Has she visited it? If so, what are her reflections having visited it?
Caroline Lucas
I am delighted to take that intervention because, alongside the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), I did indeed visit those premises. In fact, we took some food there from a local restaurant that was offering its food to that hotel because a concern had been raised that the food people were getting was pretty inedible most of the time, so they were delighted to have more suitable and appropriate food.
I have no problem with the conditions inside the hotel. As the hon. Member for Hove and I have repeatedly said, our concerns stem from what happens when the child steps outside that hotel. Frankly, everything that I saw does not take away the concern that young children, particularly traumatised young children, simply should not be housed in such hotels. However, I am glad to put the Minister’s mind at rest about the fact that I have visited the hotel and that I know of what I speak.
Safeguarding means that Ministers should close their nasty, hostile environment playbook. They should back more generous family reunification rights and support safe, functioning legal routes. Safeguarding means not housing children in hotels at all and scrapping the illegal and immoral Illegal Migration Bill.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) for securing this important debate. Before I begin, I point Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and the support that I receive from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy project for my work on these issues. I also co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on migration.
It is an absolute scandal that 440 asylum-seeking children have gone missing from Home Office hotels and that, according to the Home Office, there are still 186 who have not been found. But that is only half the question. Are the children who have been found safe, and what is happening about the remaining 186? It is alarming that the Government seem interested in the horrific crime of people trafficking only when it can be used as an opening to restrict the rights of people claiming asylum in this country. When we deal with missing children who are in real danger of ending up in the hands of traffickers, it seems that the Home Office is not concerned enough to act swiftly and thoroughly. Will the Minister update us on what steps he is taking to ensure that children in Home Office care are given the care and support they need and that they are safe? What actions have been taken to find the lost children?
Some organisations I have spoken to have raised concerns about whether the missing persons protocol has been properly followed. That is an important point. When a child first goes missing, those crucial early hours and days can help in finding them quickly and preventing further harm. Will the Minister give clear assurances that the protocol has been followed for every missing child? Will he also say whether there are instances in which the full guidance was not completely followed? If so, why that was the case? Can he give any new update on the number of children who have gone missing since the start of this year? If we do not understand how it is possible for that to happen in the first place, we cannot prevent it from happening again. Therefore, will the Minister commit to publishing a report on the circumstances around the disappearances, including lessons learned and immediate steps to prevent a repeat?
The policy of accommodating children in hotels was supposed to be temporary, but as is so often the case with the Government, a crisis has turned into business as usual. To my knowledge, since 2021, 4,500 unaccompanied children, some aged as young as 10, have been placed in hotels. Will the Minister make available as soon as possible the latest figures on how many unaccompanied children are currently housed in Home Office hotels? According to the Refugee Council, those hotels essentially operate outside the child protection system and that is a fundamental point in this debate. Local authorities are often not involved in looking after those children’s welfare or their best interests. They are not classed as looked-after children, but children are children both morally and under the law. The matter needs to be thoroughly looked at because it is clear under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 that the Home Secretary is obliged
“to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in the United Kingdom”.
Children in Home Office hotels must be treated like all resident UK children in the statutory children’s protection framework. Does the Minister seriously believe that accommodating children in hotels is compatible with that obligation?
The Children’s Commissioner has been mentioned. The Home Secretary was given a hard deadline of 17 April to provide a response to the Children’s Commissioner about her concerns around the appropriateness of care and I am surprised that that has not been provided. That is highly unusual. Will the Minister clarify whether that is due to the Home Office’s failure to systematically record the data that has been requested, or whether it simply constitutes a refusal to provide the information?
Two years after the Home Office began using hotels, there is still no strategy for moving children into suitable accommodation. It is business as usual and that is unacceptable. Will the Minister provide an update on the plans to develop a strategy to move the children out of hotels and into the care of social services through the national transfer scheme? Will he outline the steps taken to support local authorities with procuring additional placements for children? I have spoken in this place before about the current extreme costs of placements for local authorities, where £15,000 is not enough and will not cover months or weeks of many of the placements that local authorities are trying to procure from the private sector. More needs to be done in that space.
A recent report in the UK on the implementation of the UN convention on the rights of the child found a serious regression in the rights and protections of refugee children in the UK. That is shocking and forms part of a worrying trend that the Government are providing substandard care and potentially dangerous accommodation to refugees, whether that be through overcrowded hotel rooms, disused army barracks in which diseases spread or now a new masterplan for barges that essentially detain people offshore. The cruelty in that is evident, especially when we are considering children.
Others have touched on how the Illegal Migration Bill will affect children and significantly undermine the Children Act. When will the Government finally produce their impact assessment of the Bill and why, after all the failings the Government have presided over in this space, does the Home Office intend to legislate for new powers to house asylum-seeking children outside the provisions of the Children Act? Will the Minister look again at the individual approach to safeguarding that is necessary for each child? Will he recognise that children can, and do, often have other vulnerabilities such as disability? What actions are being taken to ensure that those are being taken into account?
We all have a responsibility to keep children safe. We know from safeguarding failures that have been reported both historically and more recently that safeguarding must be everyone’s top priority. The Government cannot pass the buck on this; they must intervene to keep children safe and to ensure that these children are found and then made safe.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) for securing this debate. I find it outrageous that, since July 2021, more than 400 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children have gone missing from Home Office hotels. I could stand here and say that Government Members are so and so, but no, I will not do that, because this is about the children. This is about children, who matter more than anyone else in this country.
We have a responsibility as corporate parents, as did local authorities, and it is incumbent on us all to recognise that the system in place is not fit for purpose and that we must do all that we can to protect the children from going missing. One child missing is one too many.
However, instead of urgently intervening, the Government announced in January that 200 of those 400-plus children were still missing. That number came down to 186. What it is today, I do not know, but I would guess that it is far more than the 200 reported earlier in the year, not less than that.
What has gone wrong fundamentally? That is what we need to look at. We have had announcement after announcement, but the reality is different from what the Government and Ministers have being saying regarding not only refugees and asylum seekers but—most importantly, the issue being debated today—unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.
Do we treat them as if they matter less than the children of this country? Are they second class to them? Are they third class to them? If they are not, this is a serious issue that no other parent figure would get away with. If 200 parents were responsible for this issue, action would be taken against them, but where is the action that is needed regarding those responsible? We can pass the buck all we like, but the fact is that these children have gone missing on our watch. We must take responsibility for that.
Rather than shift blame from one place to another Department, to another institution, to local government, to the Home Office, to Ministers, we need to work together. Whether that urgent work is through the Select Committee process or another mechanism, it must be done to ensure that we do not have any more children going missing and that children are not denied fundamental protections but are afforded the opportunity of safeguarding, which is central to all this.
This is a plea today for us all to come together on this issue and put the politics to one side. We must look at the interests of the children, stand behind them, and say that enough is enough.
As the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith said earlier, I believe that some of the staff at these hotels are not even DBS checked. How can we allow basic fundamentals like that to slip through the net? The staff working at the hotels where the children are living, and going missing, are not even DBS checked. Can the Minister confirm whether that is true? Honestly, would we allow any of our children to stay in such places for even a minute, let alone days, weeks or months on end? These children are our children—that is all I have to say.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) for calling this afternoon’s debate, because it is as important as it is timely.
I will start where the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali) left off: if any one of these children were our child, we would be frantic. If your child goes missing for a couple of minutes or a couple of hours, you are on the edge of your seat—you are terrified. A child inadvertently went missing on a street near me, and the whole neighbourhood was out searching for that child. The child was found and everything was all right, but who is searching—who is going street to street and door to door—to look out for every one of those 186 children who are still missing? We know that if it were any one of ours, that is exactly what we would be doing in that situation.
As a corporate parent, the Home Office has taken on these children in these hotels, outside the legislative framework that should be there to protect them. What is the Home Office doing to find each and every one of those children? By putting 4,500 unaccompanied children into hotel accommodation in that way, it has put every single one of those children at risk. There were 440 missing episodes and 186 children still not found as of April 2023. Can the Minister update us on how many of them remain missing—unfound, lost, perhaps falling into the hands of traffickers, perhaps terrified at the prospect of being removed to Rwanda or locked up or detained indefinitely?
It is very clear to me that the Illegal Migration Bill will make a very bad situation significantly worse, because it will remove rights from those children. They will never be able to claim asylum; they will not be counted; they will not matter; they will be left in limbo forever. Further to that, the Home Office is overruling in this legislation the obligations that devolved Administrations have, as the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) and others have pointed out. In Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland we have legal obligations, both in our legislation on children and in our provisions on trafficking, that the Illegal Migration Bill seeks to overrule.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith mentioned the Scottish Guardianship Service, which is operated by the Scottish Refugee Council and Aberlour. I always want to pay tribute to that service, because I know how hard those support workers work to ensure that the children in their care are looked after properly and given support. Those workers come to my surgeries in support of the children they look after, and they do a tremendous job, but they know as well as I do that the Illegal Migration Bill will prevent them from providing any service at all. That service, on the Home Office’s watch, will become obsolete: there will be no refugees, because this is a refugee ban Bill.
In order to safeguard the children in its care, the Home Office should be answering questions about the legal basis for holding children in hotels in the way it has done, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) so correctly pointed out. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) asked whether missing person protocols have been followed in those cases, and what the strategy is to get children out of that inappropriate accommodation and into somewhere they can be, and remain, safe.
The independent chief inspector of borders and immigration has said:
“long-term hotel accommodation is not suitable for families with children. A hotel car park does not constitute a safe or appropriate play area, nor does it provide the variety of activities required by children.”
It is children that we are speaking of this afternoon. They should have space to learn, play and grow, but when the Home Office houses them outside the usual rules and obligations that organisations in England such as Ofsted would have, it prevents that system from having any kind of integrity.
That is not the only way in which children are inappropriately accommodated. In my constituency in Glasgow, I have children who have been in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for a considerable time. Families are squeezed together in a room without cooking facilities and without the ability to live a proper life with space to grow and live. There are children who cannot study for school because they do not have the space, because they are crammed into a small room.
I know that this is a choice. The Home Office has outsourced this to organisations such as Mears, and in doing so it has turned a blind eye to the situations that families find themselves in. I know that Mears has three and four-bedroom flats, but it chooses to put three or four people into them because it will get more money for that, rather than housing one family. That is a choice. It also chose to have a mother-and-baby unit in Glasgow that left babies with no room to crawl safely on the floor. That is a choice, outsourced by the Home Office to its accommodation providers.
I ask the Minister: what if these children were his own? What is he doing to ensure their safety and ensure that they can prosper, grow, thrive and get the protection they so richly deserve?
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hollobone. I thank all hon. Members for their excellent contributions, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) on securing this vital debate. Colleagues have set out, far more eloquently and powerfully than I could, the deeply troubling situation in which we find ourselves. Rather than repeating that, I will set out Labour’s plans for addressing some of the challenges that we face because of the broader chaos and shambles of the asylum system across the board, which is the root cause, context and backdrop for the appalling issues that we are discussing. I will then ask the Minister some more specific questions.
Labour has spent the past nine months urging the Conservative Government to adopt our five-point plan to end the dangerous channel crossings, defeat the criminal gangs and reduce the asylum backlog, based on hard graft, common sense and quiet diplomacy. First, we would scrap the unworkable, unaffordable and unethical Rwanda scheme and redirect the money put aside into an elite cross-border 100-strong police unit to relentlessly pursue the real enemy, the ruthless criminal smuggling gangs, upstream where they are operating away from the French coastline. Secondly, we would negotiate an agreement with France and the EU that would enable us to return asylum seekers who have crossed on small boats back to mainland Europe in exchange for a more generous but strictly capped offer from Britain on resettling genuine refugees with family connections in the UK. Thirdly, we would clear the backlog by fast-tracking the processing and returns for low grant rate countries, and we would address the incomprehensible decision to downgrade the seniority and expertise of Home Office decision makers. Fourthly, Labour would fix the broken resettlement pathways, particularly the Afghan schemes. Finally, we would develop an international development strategy that would include tackling the root causes of migration.
We need to look at the issues surrounding unaccompanied children, and Labour would look very carefully at how they are treated within the system. We are deeply concerned about the changes that were introduced in January this year with regard to short-term holding facilities. Ahead of the changes coming in, I wrote to the Minister privately to raise my concerns, particularly on the scope for women and children—some of whom will be fleeing sexual violence—to be held in small rooms together with men they do not know. Unfortunately, I have not received a reply to that letter. I know that the Minister is a very busy man, but perhaps he could comment on why I did not receive a reply within the expected three-month window. Perhaps he will also make clear what action he is taking to ensure that women, girls and unaccompanied children are safeguarded.
Meanwhile, the Illegal Migration Bill has raised real concerns. Clause 14 will disapply the safeguard duty to consult the independent family returns panel when a child will be removed or detained. Clauses 15 to 20 deal with issues relating to the rights of separated children, with the provisions likely to undermine the key principles of the child protection framework, including by giving the Home Secretary the power to terminate a child’s looked-after status when they are in the care of a local authority.
For the past 18 months, the Home Office has been providing accommodation to vulnerable children, yet provision of accommodation and support to children sits outside the Home Office’s competence and knowledge base, raising serious concerns over safeguarding. It was therefore shocking but not surprising that the Minister announced on 24 January that as many as 200 unaccompanied children had gone missing from hotels. What progress has he made on finding those children? What additional safeguards are in place?
Charity workers have said that children are being picked up by gangs from outside their accommodation. What action is the Minister taking to prevent that? We have heard heartbreaking stories from my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) about children who have been sexually assaulted. On 7 November, she asked the Minister to publish the details of all those cases and the number of incidents. Does the Minister have the latest data on that to share with the House?
I will end with some additional questions on wider asylum system failures, which have led to vulnerable children being placed in dangerous conditions. Last December, the Prime Minister said that the Home Office would recruit 700 new staff to the new small boats operational command. How many are in post? Last year, the Home Office announced plans to increase the number of asylum caseworkers from 1,277 to 1,500 by the end of March this year, and then to 2,500 by the end of August. Will the Minister tell us whether he has met the first target and what progress he has made towards the second? Less than 10 years ago, almost 90% of asylum claims were decided in six months. Last year, that figure stood at barely 10%. Can that possibly be explained by anything other than incompetence? Is there perhaps another agenda that explains why the backlog is so large?
The asylum system is a mess. Vulnerable children are victims of this failing system, a system that has failed because of 13 years of sleeping at the wheel and the Government taking their eye off the ball. We need a Labour Government to sort this out—and we need that as rapidly as possible.
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I will come first to the points raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), who secured the debate. I think it has to be said that it is surprising that she would choose this topic, important though it is, given the extremely poor record of the Scottish Government.
Just to be clear on the facts, there have never been any temporary UASC hotels in Scotland. They were all in England. In Scotland as a whole, the Home Office’s internal unverified data suggests that there are currently 398 individuals in Scottish local authority care. That compares with 8,206 in local authority care across the United Kingdom. I add the caveat that those numbers require further assurance, but they suggest that Scotland is not taking its fair share.
Robert Jenrick
I will make the point, please. I have listened to the comments that were made earlier.
With respect to accompanied children, there are currently 24,300 children under the age of 18 in our accommodation across the United Kingdom. Of those, 1,353 are in Scotland. That represents just 5.6% of the overall population, when Scotland’s total population makes up 8% of the United Kingdom. Of the unaccompanied children in Scotland, only 27 are in a hotel—that is one hotel. That is not a hotel in the constituency of the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith, but I am told that there are no reported issues in that hotel.
The point I am making is twofold. First, the Scottish Government are doing nothing to resolve this issue, so, with the greatest respect to the hon. Lady, this is humanitarian nimbyism. It is posturing of the absolute worst kind. If the hon. Lady cared so deeply about this, the first thing she would do after leaving this debate would be to go and speak to the Scottish Government and then to each and every one of the SNP local authorities that are not playing their part in the national transfer scheme. That is the best thing that she could do to help vulnerable children who are currently or might in future be in hotels in England to get the good quality care that they deserve.
With respect to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who raised a point about the hotel in Hove, the reason I asked her whether she had visited the hotel—I am pleased that she has done so—is that I was aware that the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) had visited the hotel. I am pleased to see that they visited together, but when I visited I was told by the staff that certainly the hon. Member for Hove, who is not in his place any more, left satisfied that the accommodation was of a high quality and that the individuals working there were doing a good job. In a previous debate, the hon. Member said that I was ignorant and that I did not know what was happening in the hotel. Well, I went to visit the hotel immediately after that, and not only did I see extremely good work being done there, but I heard from the people doing that work that the hon. Member felt that the work was of that quality.
Robert Jenrick
I will not give way. What I saw when I visited the hotel was security guards, social workers, and team leaders who previously worked for the police and the military all doing a superbly good job. [Interruption.]
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. The Minister heard the debate in its entirety with courtesy. I want the Minister to be heard with courtesy in his response. Mr Grady, you have been very well behaved throughout the whole debate. Let’s not spoil it now.
Robert Jenrick
Thank you, Mr Hollobone. It is important that we approach this debate in the spirit not of posturing but of seeking to find solutions to this difficult problem. Obviously, the enduring solution is to reduce the number of unnecessary and dangerous crossing across the channel all together. That is the purpose of the Illegal Migration Bill. If we cannot do that, or until we do it, as soon as a young person arrives in this country we have to treat them with the greatest decency, respect and compassion, and the way to do that is to get those young people into local authority care as quickly as possible.
Given the numbers of people crossing the channel at the moment, it is not possible to do that instantaneously. On a single day last autumn, 1,000 people arrived at Western Jet Foil. The UK had literally saved their lives. We then had to feed, clothe and water them, and do security and health checks on them—all, incidentally, in 24 hours. To the point from the shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), that is why I changed the law to 96 hours. I will never compromise on security checks when people arrive in this country. It is not possible to security check 1,000 people in 24 hours, and I wanted to make sure that the police and our counter-terrorism officers have the powers they need. Ensuring those young people leave Western Jet Foil and go as quickly as possible to good quality local authority care has to be the mission of us all. That means supporting local authorities in every single part of the United Kingdom to step up and play their part.
The Home Office is doing this in a number of ways. We have provided financial incentives; I created a further financial incentive—a pilot of £15,000 per young person to encourage local authorities to take those individuals as swiftly as possible on the national transfer scheme. That has had success. Today there are no unaccompanied young people in hotels whatsoever. There may well be more young people in the future if more small boats cross in the months ahead. We need to encourage more local authorities to take part in that scheme.
I completely appreciate the points that have been made by a number of hon. Members that there are huge capacity constraints within local authorities and local authority care homes, and that there is a desperate shortage of foster carers. Those are issues that we should all be united in trying to tackle. The Home Office, in the short period when we house people in an emergency situation in hotels, will always do so decently and will always ensure that those hotels are as well run as possible, but we have to get people out of hotels and into local authority care as quickly as possible.
Dame Nia Griffith
Will the Minister clarify whether, if he goes ahead and uses the Stradey Park Hotel in my constituency for asylum seekers, he is considering housing any unaccompanied children there? What measures will be taken to prevent them from going missing?
Robert Jenrick
As far as I am aware, we do not intend to use that location for unaccompanied children. I will confirm that in writing, but that is not my understanding. To the point that the hon. Lady and others made about what we do when a young person goes missing from one of the hotels, as a parent and a Minister I take this responsibility extremely seriously. When I heard that young people had gone missing from the hotels, I wanted not only to visit them, but to meet all the officials involved in the task.
When I visited the hotels, including the one in Hove, I wanted to meet the social workers privately, not with Home Office officials or others present, so that I could hear directly from them, in private, whether they believe that we are doing everything we can and that we treat a missing person who is a migrant in exactly the same way as we would treat a missing person who is a British citizen—my child or your child. I was told, time and again, that we do: that we follow exactly the same processes in reporting missing people; that we engage thoroughly with the local constabularies, which are fully involved; and that we have created a specific new process called the MARS—missing after reasonable steps—protocol by which we report missing persons
That MARS process has had some success and has enabled us to track more individuals than we did previously. Crucially, every single step is taken as it would be if any other young person in this country went missing. We also have as thorough procedures as is possible in the hotels for checking people in and out, when they leave to go to the park or for a walk, as they can in such facilities.
On that point, it is worth noting that the facilities are not detained facilities. In the debate, I heard no hon. Member urging us to create detained facilities for young people. As long as the facilities are non-detained, inevitably some young people will decide to use the opportunity to leave, which on the intelligence we have is mostly to meet family or friends, or to prearranged meetings with individuals whom they had already agreed to meet, who would no doubt then help the young people to work in the grey or black economies. We have heard no evidence that people have been abducted from outside hotels. In this important debate, we have to trade in fact, not anecdote.
Robert Jenrick
I will give way briefly to the hon. Gentleman, but I must wrap up soon, because we have only a few minutes left.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes, I should say that the Minister has two minutes left.
Patrick Grady
The Minister says he met staff and officials. Did he meet any of the children? Did he look any of them in the eye and tell them that they should not be here and were not welcome?
Robert Jenrick
Well, I regret giving way. I thought that the hon. Gentleman wanted to make a serious point; sadly, he wanted to make a frivolous one. I did talk to the young people—of course I did—to understand their perspectives. We care deeply about their safety. We want to ensure that fewer young people cross the channel illegally in small boats. I urge the hon. Gentleman to go to see the conditions that those young people are in when they get into those small boats: the risk to personal safety that the crossing involves; the cruelty and depravity of the people smugglers and traffickers behind the trade; and, at times, the irresponsibility of parents and others who put their children through this journey.
Robert Jenrick
I cannot, because I have to bring my remarks to a close.
The purpose of the Illegal Migration Bill is to put an end to this trade once and for all, so we can focus our resources as a country on supporting young people and families, among others, who are in great need, directly from conflict zones—through our world-class resettlement schemes such as those we have established in recent years—from Ukraine, from Syria and from Afghanistan, and through the global scheme that the United Nations runs on our behalf. We want the UK to be an even greater force for good in the world, and we do that—
Robert Jenrick
I cannot give way because there is no time left.
We do that by beating the people smugglers and stopping the boats.
Deidre Brock
I am glad that I was able to secure the debate. I was outraged to hear about those missing children, and what appeared to be shocking indifference by the UK Government in regard to their going missing. I was very dissatisfied with the inadequate response that the Minister recently gave to a Member about this.
I have seen nothing but an unrepentant, defensive attitude from the Minister today, with no answers to the many questions raised by Members today. I remind him that Glasgow City Council, under an SNP Administration, has consistently taken more asylum seekers than local authorities in most of England, particularly the south-east. [Interruption.] No, it is not. Scotland has taken more arrivals per head of population under the Homes for Ukraine scheme than any of the four UK nations. I remind the Minister that councils across the UK have pointed out that Home Office funding for the dispersal scheme is insufficient and must be looked at again.
The proverb, “It takes a village to raise a child”, surely means that all of us are responsible for every child’s wellbeing, and that includes Government Ministers and the UK Government. We want transparency, accountability and responsibility from Ministers on that, and I am sorry to say that I did not hear any of that from the Minister today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the accommodation of asylum-seeking children in hotels.
Written Statements
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Local Television
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Sir John Whittingdale)
The Government have today published on gov.uk a consultation addressing arrangements for the renewal of the local TV multiplex licence and for the renewal, or relicensing, of the 34 individual local TV services currently operating across the UK. The consultation also seeks views on the current statutory objectives for local TV services.
The licences for the local TV multiplex, and for all 34 local TV services, are due to expire on 25 November 2025. In the broadcasting White Paper “Up Next”, published last year, the Government committed to changing the local TV licensing regime to enable the renewal of the local TV multiplex licence until 2034. This was to mirror the changes to the national digital terrestrial television multiplex licensing legislation made in 2021.
The White Paper also confirmed that the Government would consult on the detailed arrangements and conditions for the renewal of the local TV multiplex licence, and on options for the renewal or relicensing of individual local TV services at the same time.
The 12-week consultation we are publishing today, which is open to both industry participants and members of the public, sets out the Government’s proposals for the future of both the multiplex licence and, in turn, the individual services across the UK.
The Government’s approach to the consultation reflects that, a decade on from the launch of the first local TV service in 2013, the sector has weathered many challenges and continues to play an important role in the wider broadcasting ecosystem through its ability to provide local news and content—particularly to those who are digitally excluded. It also reflects that some local TV services have struggled to generate stable revenue streams, maintain consistent audience numbers, and sustainably fund genuinely local content.
A copy of the consultation document will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS828]
Further Education Capital Funding
(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)
Higher technical qualifications (HTQs) are a key part of our skills reforms, addressing skills shortages and employer demand. We are now approaching the end of the first year of delivery, which has seen over 70 providers across the country able to offer 31 digital HTQs, and more qualifications are being taught from this September in construction and in health and science. Today, the Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), and I will be joining providers, employers, learners and others to celebrate these successes.
This Government are committed to the success of HTQs, providing £70 million of funding to help providers build their capacity to deliver excellent higher technical training. We are also investing £300 million in prestigious, employer-led institutes of technology, which will further support the teaching of HTQs.
Building on this, I am pleased to announce the launch of a second round of the higher technical education skills injection fund (SIF), which will provide up to £48 million of funding to support providers in delivering HTQs in occupational areas including digital, engineering and manufacturing, and protective services in the 2024/25 and 2025/26 academic years.
The SIF offers both capital and resource funding, supporting providers to purchase industry-standard specialised equipment, market their qualifications, upskill staff, develop their curriculum, and more. This will further support the growth of high-quality level 4 and 5 provision that meets the growing employer demand for higher technical skills, helping raise productivity and unlock potential.
Details of the SIF, including how providers can apply and details of webinars to provider support and guidance, will be published on www.gov.uk today.
I am pleased also to announce that details of the 66 qualifications that have been approved as HTQs in the latest cycle will be published on the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education’s website today.
I would also like to use this statement to thank those employers and providers who have already helped develop and deliver HTQs, and to encourage others to do so. Working together, we can ensure that more people climb the ladder of opportunity to long-term job security and prosperity.
More information about HTQs is available from
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/higher-technical-qualification-overview
[HCWS826]
Higher Technical Education
(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)
Higher technical qualifications (HTQs) are a key part of our skills reforms to address skills shortages and employer demand. We are now approaching the end of the first year of delivery, which has seen over 70 providers across the country able to offer 31 digital HTQs, and more qualifications are being taught from this September in construction and health and science. Today, the Secretary of State and I will be joining providers, employers, learners and others to celebrate these successes.
This Government are committed to the success of HTQs, providing £70 million of funding to help providers build their capacity to deliver excellent higher technical training. We are also investing £300 million in prestigious, employer-led Institutes of Technology, which will further support the teaching of HTQs.
Building on this, I am pleased to announce the launch of a second round of the higher technical education skills injection fund (SIF), which will provide up to £48 million of funding to support providers in delivering HTQs in occupational areas including digital, engineering and manufacturing, and protective services in the 2024-25 and 2025-26 academic years.
The SIF offers both capital and resource funding, supporting providers to purchase industry-standard specialised equipment, market their qualifications, upskill staff, develop their curriculum and more. This will further support the growth of high-quality level 4 and 5 provision that meets the growing employer demand for higher technical skills, helping to raise productivity and unlock potential.
Details of the SIF, including how providers can apply and details of webinars to provide support and guidance, will be published on gov.uk today.
I am pleased to also announce that details of the 66 qualifications which have been approved as HTQs in the latest cycle will be published on the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education’s website today.
I would also like to use this statement to thank those employers and providers who have already helped develop and deliver HTQs, and encourage others to do so. Working together we can ensure more people climb the ladder of opportunity to long-term job security and prosperity.
More information about HTQs is available from
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/higher-technical-qualification-overview
[HCWS827]
Tackling Obesity
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Neil O'Brien)
The Government are committed to helping people live healthier lives. The 2019 health survey for England estimated that over 12 million adults were living with obesity—28% of the population in England.
Tackling obesity, which increases the risk of a range of serious and chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes, remains a key priority.
The Government are announcing that up to £40 million of funding will be provided over two years to pilot ways to make the newest and most effective obesity drugs accessible to eligible patients living with obesity outside of hospital settings.
Earlier this year, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommended the use of semaglutide (Wegovy) when it launches for adults with a body mass index (BMI) of at least 35 and one weight-related health condition—such as diabetes or high blood pressure. There is evidence from clinical trials that, when prescribed alongside diet, physical activity and behavioural support, patients taking Wegovy can lose around 15% of their body weight after one year, reducing the risk of obesity-related illnesses. Some patients taking this weight-loss drug can begin to lose weight as quickly as within the first month of treatment. Another drug known as tirzepatide is expected to be assessed by NICE for weight loss. Losing weight can help to reduce the risk of obesity-related illness, which in turn can reduce pressure on the NHS, cut waiting times and realise wider economic benefits.
NICE advises that weight-loss drugs are prescribed within a specialist weight management service. Currently, these services are mainly based in hospitals, which means that only around 35,000 people per annum have access to weight-loss drugs, when millions more could potentially benefit.
The £40 million pilots will explore how approved drugs can be made safely available to more people by expanding specialist weight management services outside of hospital settings. This includes looking at how GPs could safely prescribe these drugs and how the NHS can provide wraparound support in the community or digitally. This could increase dramatically the number of people who have the opportunity to benefit from these treatments and provide more equitable access.
The pilot will be delivered by NHS England working closely with the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID) and NICE. The pilots will be designed with input from primary and community care organisations and existing specialist weight management services. There will be a robust and independent evaluation led by the National Institute for Health and Care Research to ensure any wider roll-out is informed by the best possible evidence.
The pilot builds on the firm action the Government are already taking to tackle obesity. This includes introducing the soft drinks industry levy, which has seen the average sugar content of drinks decrease by 46% between 2015 and 2020, and investment of £350 million to boost school sport to help children and young people have an active start to life.
Last year the Government announced £20 million for the Office for Life Sciences’ obesity mission. This is in addition to the £40 million announced today and will explore innovative ways to best utilise promising medicines and digital technologies to help NHS patients achieve a healthy weight.
The Better Health: Rewards app is also being piloted in Wolverhampton. It is offering incentives such as vouchers for shops, gym discounts and cinema tickets for people who eat healthily and exercise more.
The Department for Health and Social Care launched a call for evidence in May to inform the major conditions strategy, including further work to tackle obesity.
[HCWS831]
Reciprocal Healthcare: 2021-22 Annual Report
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Health and Secondary Care (Will Quince)
I have today laid before Parliament the second annual report on international healthcare payments pursuant to section 6 of the Healthcare (European Economic Area and Switzerland Arrangements) Act 2019.
The 2019 Act implements the social security co-ordination protocol to the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement, the UK/Switzerland convention on social security co-ordination and the various separation agreements with the European economic area and Switzerland.
These European-wide arrangements ensure UK residents continue to benefit from reciprocal healthcare arrangements when they visit, study or live in European Union member states. Specifically, UK residents can access necessary healthcare when they travel to Europe (the global health insurance card scheme) or access planned healthcare if they meet certain criteria (known as the S2 scheme). Eligible UK state pensioners, frontier workers and certain other groups can have their healthcare costs covered by the UK Government when they move to Europe (known as the S1 scheme).
Building on the successful continuation of our European reciprocal healthcare agreements, the Government are now seeking to broaden the benefits of the GHIC. New or refreshed arrangements are being negotiated with our overseas territories, Crown dependencies and other states, where reciprocal healthcare cover will bring greater benefits to the UK. The amendments passed in the Health and Care Act 2022 will enable the Government to implement comprehensive healthcare agreements with countries outside the EEA and Switzerland when it comes into force in 2023.
The report I laid before Parliament today covers the Government’s expenditure on reciprocal healthcare under the powers conferred by the 2019 Act between 1 April 2021 and 31 March 2022, pursuant to our international commitments in the UK’s agreements with the European Union, member states of the European economic area and Switzerland. The report also includes the states and jurisdictions with which the Government are currently negotiating new reciprocal healthcare arrangements.
[HCWS829]
Elections Act 2022: Implementation
(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 (Dehenna Davison)
My hon. Friend the Minister for Faith and Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) has made the following written ministerial statement:
The Elections Act 2022 delivers our commitment to maintain the integrity of UK elections making sure they remain secure, fair and modern. Through the Act, Parliament resolved to update the franchise for European citizens to reflect the decision made by the UK people in 2016 to leave the European Union, and the new relationship we have with Europe.
The automatic right that European citizens have to vote and stand in local elections in the UK granted solely as a consequence of our EU membership is not one which can continue. There has never been a general right for European nationals to vote in Parliamentary elections—choosing the next UK Government is already rightly restricted to British citizens and those with the closest historic links to our country, and this will not change. Going forward, the local voting rights of EU citizens living in the UK should be considered alongside the rights and interests of British citizens living abroad.
In future, the rights of EU citizens living in the UK will rest on the principle of a mutual grant of rights, through agreements with EU member states. These bilateral voting and candidacy agreements ensure that we also protect the rights of British citizens living in EU countries. We have already secured such agreements with Spain, Portugal, Luxembourg and Poland.
In line with the Government’s commitment to respect the rights of EU citizens who chose to make the UK their home prior to the end of the implementation period, all EU citizens who have been living in the UK since before 31 December 2020 will also retain their voting and candidacy rights, provided they retain lawful immigration status.
As part of the process of implementing the Elections Act, I have today published the draft statutory instrument, the Representation of the People (Franchise Amendment and Eligibility Review) Regulations 2023, with an accompanying draft explanatory memorandum. The statutory instrument will make the requisite changes to voter registration and electoral administration processes to implement this franchise change. It makes changes to processes to facilitate the future registration of eligible EU citizens under the updated criteria, and it also sets out a fair and transparent process by which electoral registration officers will undertake a one-time review of those EU citizens who are currently registered to determine if they remain eligible to vote in the relevant polls. We will continue to engage with key stakeholders to support efficient delivery of these important changes, as we have throughout development of the policy and processes.
These changes will apply to all levels of local election in England and other local polls or referendums, and to Police and Crime Commissioner elections in England and Wales. A parallel statutory instrument will also apply these changes to local elections in Northern Ireland and elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Other local and devolved elections in Scotland and Wales are within the remit of the devolved Administrations and so are not in scope.
The statutory instrument is published in accordance with the procedure required by schedule 8 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and agreed with Parliament. The statutory instrument is being published, in draft, at least 28 days before being laid in draft to be considered under affirmative procedures in parliament.
[HCWS830]
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 Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Climate: Behaviour Change (Environment and Climate Change Committee Report)
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Parminter
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the Environment and Climate Change Committee In our hands: Behaviour change for climate and environmental goals (1st Report, HL Paper 64).
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, if we are to achieve climate and environmental goals and wider benefits for society such as better health, greater energy security and sustainable prosperity, changing our behaviour is essential. Successive Governments have made welcome progress in reducing emissions through technological innovation and changes in energy supply, but far less attention has been paid to making it easier for people to switch to new products and services, and to reduce consumption.
Drawing on the Climate Change Committee’s assessment, our first Select Committee report identified that 32% of UK emission reductions by 2035 require decisions by individuals and households to adopt low-carbon technologies, choose low-carbon products and services and reduce carbon-intensive consumption. One-third of our emission reductions require us as individuals to act. Encouragingly, there is widespread public concern about climate change and a desire for action. We cite government polling showing that 85% of the public are “concerned” or “very concerned” about climate change, but the evidence is that the majority of people lack awareness of the most effective actions that they can take to reduce the impacts of climate change. It means that people need a clear vision now of what they can do about how we travel and heat our homes, and what we consume, including what we eat and waste. The barriers to making those changes—cost, convenience and availability—need to be addressed. This requires action and leadership from government. We found that the Government’s approach is inadequate to meet the scale and urgency of the challenge. Although they have refreshed their net-zero strategy since our report, their approach, Powering Up Britain, to enable behaviour change remains exactly the same. We outline that the Government need to do three things.
First, they should use every lever at their disposal, by which we mean regulation, fiscal incentives and disincentives, adapting the individual’s choice environment and providing powerful informational tools. The importance of using every lever echoed the findings of the 2011 Science and Technology Committee’s inquiry into behaviour change. To be clear, the Government have taken some important decisions, including phasing out the sale of new petrol and diesel vans by 2030, but not across all high-emission areas—including helping to cut waste from our homes. We have had government consultations on introducing consistent collections for household and business recycling, on an extended producer responsibility scheme for packaging and on a waste prevention programme. But there has been no government response, despite all three consultations closing more than two years ago.
I ask the Minister: when will the Government act to help cut the mountains of waste in our homes? Not enough has been done to tackle the high carbon emissions from our 27 million homes. Not enough is not nothing, and our committee has taken a keen interest in how the Government are seeking to pump-prime the market for heat pumps as a means of bringing costs down with stretching targets and the boiler upgrade scheme. However, while we welcome the Government’s intentions and that they listened to some of our recommendations to strengthen the boiler upgrade scheme, barriers around awareness, cost and finding trusted installers remain.
Secondly, we need to enlist the public. Sir Patrick Vallance told us that
“individuals need to know what is expected of them and what they can do”.
The Government have provided online energy advice to the public, which, since our report, has been supplemented by a welcome £18 million energy advice campaign, “It All Adds Up”. However, given the urgency of consumer action and the comparisons with personalised advice services available in other countries, we were left underwhelmed. We saw no evidence of delivery on two of the Government’s six net-zero principles, namely,
“to motivate and build public acceptability for major changes and to present a clear vision of how we will get to net zero and what the role of people and business will be”.
We called for a public engagement strategy to be developed —a call echoed by the right honourable Chris Skidmore MP in his subsequent independent review of net zero.
It is good that the Government have now said that they will set out further details on how they will increase public engagement on net zero. I ask the Minister: will they do so in a strategy, like the Scottish Government’s public engagement strategy for net zero, and consult on it, as the Welsh Government have just done on their draft strategy? As part of increasing that public engagement, will he commit to using climate citizen assemblies, given that the evidence from those forums, including the House of Commons in 2020, is that when the problems and solutions are exposed to members of the public, they are largely supportive of making the changes needed?
Thirdly, we need to help people cut high-carbon activities, such as flying, where technologies are currently insufficient or underdeveloped. The Government soundly rejected the approach we took, arguing that they will go
“with the grain of consumer choice”.
France’s then Minister for Ecological Transition, Barbara Pompili, told us of their approach to help people cut the number of flights with a ban on short-haul domestic flights under two and a half hours. In contrast, our Government, with their techno-optimism, are pinning all their hopes on new fuels, whereas we conclude that the Government should launch a call for evidence on introducing a frequent-flyer levy on long-haul flights. That could make a meaningful contribution to emission reductions as well as meeting public support for fair measures to address them.
Delivering this behavioural change requires working alongside other institutions and organisations in a more collaborative way than existing government structures and intentions support, especially local authorities, which, due to their proximity to households, active civil society and faith groups, and their ability to tailor place-based solutions, are in a key position to help deliver the green transition, yet the evidence we received identified that they lack the necessary powers and resources to do so. Our report welcomed the creation of the local net-zero forum to support partnership working between national and local government, although there have been reports in recent months that it has been hard to get Ministers to attend. How do the Government plan to enable the necessary net-zero and environmental behaviour changes that local authorities are best placed to deliver, while providing them with limited funding and support?
The Government’s approach to behaviour change, with their mantra of going with the grain of consumer choice, is out of step with science, which demands urgent action. It is also out of step with public support for government leadership, and with the opportunities to grow net-zero services, products and, critically, the jobs of the future. Clearly, it is driven by political imperatives. Part of that is the cost. Overcoming the upfront barriers requires subsidies, with the accompanying case for taxes, which for some is the ultimate in coercive intrusion into personal choice—never mind, as the noble Lord, Lord Stern, reminds us, that the cost of climate action is far outweighed by the cost of inaction.
Part of the problem is that behaviour change for the climate requires collective action and building community infrastructure, such as better public transport, which smacks to some of enlarging the state and shrinking the private space of individuals. Part of it, too, is the fear of it being pulled out of the nanny state, when in fact, choosing not to regulate markets means that you allow companies with no interest in societal roles to shape social norms and choices. It is the opposite of strong government, let alone delivering climate justice, given that going with the grain of consumer choice means consumers have the liberty to do what they want but the resulting impact of climate change will mean suffering for others.
Our report drew on behavioural science, the evidence of what works and the responses from over 150 individuals and organisations to our call for evidence. We thank them for that, the Government for their engagement and our staff, Connie Walsh, Laura Ayres and Oli Rix, with the support of POST fellow Jo Herschan and our specialist adviser, Professor Lorraine Whitmarsh. We are also thankful for the insights from our youth engagement programme, from the six schools: Stockton Riverside, Birkenhead School in Liverpool, Grove Academy in Dundee, Ulidia Integrated College in Northern Ireland and Ysgol Cwm Brombil in Port Talbot. We thank them all for the insights they gave us. I also thank the committee members, many of whom are here today, and look forward to hearing what they have to say. It is invidious to call out one person from whom one is particularly looking forward to hearing, but I must point to the noble Lord, Lord Rees, who speaks so knowledgeably on science, politics and ethics: the three things that intersect at the point of our report. I beg to move.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, this is a very interesting report about people’s motives and communications, from a very distinguished committee, which many of us have read with great interest. My only regret is that there is a certain coyness in the report about cost—the cost of buying into the green energy transition. You may say, “What about cost?”. The point is that costs and savings are the decisive behaviour issue for most people when they have to look at their budget and decide how much to spend and by how much they will be supported from outside.
Of course, it is all okay for the wealthiest 10%—that, we know. They have enough cash to install ground heat pumps or air heat pumps and hope that they will perform and be efficient. That is no great skin off their nose and no great challenge because they have the money. That is for the 10%, but for the other 90%—not just the poorest end but practically every family in the land, certainly throughout the middle and lower-income groups—it is not like that at all. They are dealing with a budget where every penny counts and having to embark on new expenditure and decisions such as this for their homes, small businesses or whatever, is quite a different proposition.
I declare an interest in that I advise Mitsubishi Electric in Europe, one of the biggest producers of heat pumps and air-conditioning. It is working very hard to bring down the cost of this machinery, particularly heat pumps, making them more amenable and accessible for those living in flats, apartments and so on, and making them more efficient in delivering the heating, comfort, hot water and so on that people want. It has some way to go.
The report states, very frankly, that there is “limited understanding” of this whole area. That is certainly true and it applies particularly to the confusion in the public mind, which is aggravated by disgraceful media coverage claiming that decarbonising the present electricity sector is the answer to everything. One gets ridiculous headlines in the newspapers on days when wind power supplies 100% of our electricity, saying that that has solved the problem—“We’ve decarbonised; no need to worry”—so people sit back, unaware that that is only a tiny part of the decarbonisation process. Last year, the electricity sector accounted for 18% of our total energy usage, so the other four-fifths—the other 81% or more—of fossil fuel energy has to be decarbonised. We have hardly started; this is just the foothills. What about the other 80%? This is a gigantic new area, which will require vast low-carbon investment in nuclear power and wind, as well as a virtually new national grid.
My simple message today with this excellent report is that people need to understand the scale of what is to come and how little distance we have gone, and they should understand who is going to pay, whether it is taxpayers again, who are already pressed, or the wretched consumer—one of the Government’s ideas is that the consumer will pay for the new Sizewell C reactor.
My own preference would be that we should give far more effort to mobilising private investment—billions or trillions under management in pension funds are presently going abroad—and injecting that into the vast new expenditure needed so that people can make safe decisions that mean they will not bankrupt themselves and their families by rushing into new projects which are not proven. That is the reality. Cost will guide the decisions and behaviour of most people. The more we understand that and the more we explain where the cost will be covered, the better chance we have—I think we will get there—of achieving our NZ goals.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I had the pleasure of joining the Environment and Climate Change Committee after its work on the report on behaviour change was completed. However, I have read the report and absolutely concur with its findings, very ably articulated today by our excellent chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter.
The report makes it clear that behaviour change is one part of the necessary toolbox to achieve our net- zero target by 2050. Government policies and fiscal incentives can go only so far. There has been a lot of talk of hectoring and compulsion, of the danger of pushing through policies against the wishes of the people, but there is huge public support for actions to tackle climate change. As the ONS report makes clear, 64% of adults say they are worried about the impact of climate change, and 59% feel that this and the environment are among the top issues concerning voters today. People want to do the right thing. What they lack is a clear road map to make the necessary changes in their lives in the most cost-effective way.
Leadership and direction need to come from the top, but when did Rishi Sunak last make a meaningful contribution on the need to tackle climate change? He is remembered mostly for turning up late and leaving early at COP 27.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
And using helicopters. He is increasingly pandering to the anti-green faction on his own Back Benches, who put fossil fuels before green energy.
This lack of government leadership and awareness of the scale of the challenge was reflected in the response to the committee’s report. It is, by any measure, disappointing. It refers to a plethora of policies and strategies which we know are not being enacted effectively. This failing is clearly demonstrated in our report in relation, for example, to the delays in the boiler upgrade scheme, which we will debate at a later date.
The government response to the committee also fails to grasp the need for greater co-ordination and leadership across departments to provide the public with a clear narrative about the road to change. Yet when Grant Shapps recently gave evidence to our committee, it became clear that net-zero policies were still not a priority for some of his colleagues.
The government response to the committee also failed to recognise the huge benefits in delivering behaviour change in partnership with civil society, local government and business groups. This is particularly important given that the BEIS public attitudes tracker shows that the UK Government are now one of the least trusted sources of accurate information about climate change, so working with other, more trusted partners is key.
On key policy areas, such as aviation and food production, there was a marked reluctance to intervene, yet we know that individuals will have to make difficult choices in these areas if we are to have any hope of reaching our targets.
Since our report was published, Chris Skidmore MP has published his impressive net zero review, which examined how the UK could better meet its net-zero targets in a changing world. He identifies that huge economic opportunities of clean technology could be taken if we moved quickly and acted decisively. But his report echoes the themes of our report. He emphasises that the Government need to ramp up engagement with the public by publishing a public engagement strategy this year, and he proposes the creation of a carbon calculator to provide consumers with better information to make informed decisions on their carbon footprint.
As the evidence for a proper behaviour change strategy stacks up, I hope that the Minister will feel able to give a more positive welcome to our report’s recommendations in his response.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, our behaviour can adapt at the required pace only if government itself provides the right policy framework and puts the appropriate incentives in place—and that, I regret to say, is not happening.
The majority of carbon emissions in the UK, as we all know, stem from road transport and from heating 30 million homes and buildings. The number of EVs is rising fast and outpacing a charging network which is haphazard and unreliable—viz the recent queues over the holiday at motorway service stations. Range anxiety will not dissipate until a charge point is as quickly and easily accessed as a petrol pump. We need a comprehensive national plan to ensure that, wherever you travel and wherever you live, whether in a tower block, a terraced street, or a country village, a charge point is readily and reliably to hand. When will we have such a plan?
We have the oldest housing stock in Europe—poorly insulated and heated overwhelmingly by gas. For most households, the cost of migrating away from hydrocarbons to effective insulation, which is vital, and a heat pump is prohibitive. How will government transform the incentives —making electricity far cheaper than gas, for instance? When will the Government deliver on the challenge that they set themselves in the 2021 strategy to
“make the green choice the easiest”
and
“make the green choice affordable”?
Precisely how much electricity do the Government forecast we would need if by 2040 we were successfully to decarbonise transport and heating? Where is the analysis underpinning the “doubling” current need assumption in the Powering Up Britain plan published earlier this year—if it exists? Will it be published? Where is the plan for, and what is the cost of, the massive upgrade of our electricity distribution network that such extra demand would require?
Powering Up Britain would not pass muster in any decent boardroom in Britain, for it is full of headlines but largely devoid of analysis and assessment—for instance, of the economics of hydrogen or carbon capture, or clarity about what part both technologies might play. For hydrogen, yes, it would most likely be maritime and heavy rail freight on non-electrified lines —but what else? Mankind, as most here will agree, faces no greater nor more important challenge than net zero, but achieving that goal requires co-ordination right across Whitehall. I worked at the centre of government for six years, and I know just how hard it is to herd the cats and achieve integrated and holistic cross-departmental objectives.
If the UK is to play its part, we need appropriate machinery of government in place. It is plainly right to have an energy department, but I think it is wrong to assign it the lead responsibility for net zero. That can be achieved only by a muscular entity at the centre working hand in glove with all departments and with powerful analytical support evaluating competing technologies, assessing the economics, integrating planning, identifying the costs, and monitoring progress against detailed plans. Until we have such machinery in place—and I greatly regret to say this—we can have no confidence whatever that we are on a certain and optimal path to net zero, and all those many well intentioned individuals who want to play their part and change their behaviour will lack the opportunity to do so.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
My Lords, it is a pleasure to be part of your Lordships’ committee under the excellent leadership of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and to present this report and debate it today. Many in your Lordships’ House will have seen the 2021 Hollywood film “Don’t Look Up”, which was written and directed by Adam McKay. It explores the world’s response to climate change through the metaphor of an asteroid hurtling towards the earth bringing destruction in its wake. The scientists and world leaders in the film have a way through the crisis, but only if the scientific facts are acknowledged and the world works together. As noble Lords may know, in the film the world fails that test spectacularly.
Each year brings fresh reminders of the reality of global heating in floods, fires, extreme weather events, natural disasters and rising sea levels. The IPCC continues to publish ever more solemn warnings to the world, including most recently that we are likely to see a 1.5 degree rise in average temperature in at least one year in this decade. The human consequences of climate change are seen in wars, migration, changing crop patterns and the loss of islands and coastal areas. The burden falls most on the poorest and those who have historically used the least in terms of carbon, yet still we do not listen.
Our inquiry confirmed that public concern about climate change is rising. We confirmed that the population is looking for guidance on how best to respond in the key areas of diet, travel, home heating and transport, but we also confirmed that the tools are not in place, the leadership is uncertain and co-ordination is lacking, so our report calls for a serious, committed and joined-up campaign of public engagement and information to create the appetite for and support behaviour change. We have not yet seen a convincing response. This is a relatively small step forward, but something only government can do to encourage the whole sector.
The United Kingdom has become in some areas a world leader in combating climate change with ground-breaking legislation and policies. I appreciate and welcome all that the Government are doing across a range of fields. There are many other actors in this space. My diocese of Oxford has set aside a very large sum to engage with net-zero work on more than 400 vicarages. We have more than 800 church buildings and almost 300 schools. We are on a pathway to net zero by 2035, and we have a vision that every local congregation will be an agent of change in its own community.
However, this report demonstrates very clearly that this is a battle which must be waged on a number of fronts in a co-ordinated way. To use the title of another recent film, we need to be doing everything, everywhere, all at once.
We now have a very narrow window to respond to this emergency. In 10 years’ time, the choices facing the world and our successors in this House will be very different from those we face today if we do not act. The Government’s review, conducted by Chris Skidmore, reached very similar conclusions to our behaviour change report on public engagement and leadership and policy to support behaviour change, yet we still have seen very little action. Will the Minister say when the Government’s energy and leadership in this area of behaviour change will match the scale of the crisis which we face?
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, it was a privilege for me to serve on the committee, even though it was a pain for its other members to have me on it, since I voted against this report. I will explain why.
Our starting point was that there are two ways to achieve net zero, both potentially necessary. One is to adopt carbon-free technologies, and the other is to adopt more frugal lifestyles, reducing the demand for carbon. The committee decided to investigate how great a role lifestyle changes could play in meeting net zero and how to motivate people to adopt them. Our call for evidence explicitly defined “behaviour change”, for the purposes of this inquiry, as
“the lifestyle changes that may be required by individuals, households, and communities”.
We did not seek evidence about adopting carbon-free technologies such as electric vehicles or heat pumps since, by definition, if they are good replacements for the present fossil-fuelled technologies, they require no behaviour change.
So we invited witnesses to give evidence about lifestyle changes, like driving less, walking or cycling more, flying less, eating less meat and shunning fast fashion. Many witnesses, and some committee members, were keen on these lifestyle changes, for reasons quite independent of reducing carbon emissions. They believe, no doubt correctly, that more frugal lifestyles would be good for our bodies and souls. That appeals to puritans, to those who love bossing people around and to eco-warriors who want us to regress to the pre-industrial world.
An early draft of our report criticised government for a lack of leadership and suggested restricting the number of flights that anyone might make. I proposed that the committee should demonstrate leadership by pledging to limit ourselves to two flights per annum. This was rejected out of hand—lifestyle changes are for them, not us. None the less, the committee was all set to proclaim that, without major lifestyle changes, Britain cannot reach net zero. Our draft criticised government for relying too much on technology change and too little on behaviour change.
Then came the inconvenient truth. We discovered that the Government’s official advisory body, the Climate Change Committee, said that 90% of the carbon reductions on the path to net zero could be achieved by adopting carbon-free technologies. A mere 10% of carbon reduction required lifestyle changes, particularly
“a shift in diets away from meat and dairy products”,
as well as reductions in waste, slower growth in flights and reductions in travel demand. Suddenly, the huge role we had imagined for behaviour change was reduced to something pretty insignificant. So what did the committee do? It voted to exclude any mention of the 10% figure, even in a footnote. I repeat: it voted to exclude that information. I wait for other members of the committee to justify that.
We needed a big figure to get a good headline, so we asked our excellent clerks to conjure up a larger figure over the Summer Recess, however loosely associated with behaviour change. They duly returned with two numbers: 63% and 32%, both of which appear in the final report. The 63% includes savings from carbon capture and storage, a fact omitted from the report, since no one would seriously associate that with behaviour change. The 32% figure mentioned by our excellent chairman as relying on savings that are the result of voluntary changes includes contributions from electric cars and heat pumps, which people will have no option but to buy from the 2030s onwards.
The justification that I was given for redefining “behaviour change” to include these technologies was that range uncertainty and recharging times require complex journey planning that is inconvenient, and heat pumps will likely leave you needing to wrap up warm in winter. That is doubtless true, but it is obviously not mentioned in the report, lest we provoke opposition to electric vehicles and heat pumps.
I have the highest respect for my noble colleagues’ integrity and sincerity, but, instead of producing evidence-based policy proposals, this report is an exercise in policy-based evidence selection. Inconvenient truths were deliberately suppressed, definitions were changed deliberately to mislead, and evidence was cited for which we had not carried out any investigations. However noble the cause, this is not the way that this House should go about producing its reports.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, it was a pleasure to serve on the Environment and Climate Change Committee for close to two years, during which time the evidence was laid and this report was published. It was a distinct pleasure to serve under the excellent, able and inclusive chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. It was also a pleasure to work with the excellent staff and advisers who we had in this inquiry—too many to name; I am conscious of my time.
I must say that, having looked at the list of possible speakers, I had hoped that I would not be in the position of having to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lilley. We had very good-natured and interesting debates between us in the course of this inquiry. I really wanted to make another speech, but I cannot resist the temptation. Over a lot of our time together on the committee, I tried to persuade the noble Lord that, for example, my family’s decision to change from a petrol-driven car to an electric vehicle was a lifestyle change, and one whose consequences caused us to make other lifestyle changes. Because of the limited range of the vehicle, we changed the way in which we drove it—indeed, whether we drove it at all. We made distinct changes to the way in which we travelled. I cannot guarantee that I will not make any more than two flights in a year, but I have not yet made two this year. I travel less by carbon-fuelled vehicles and more, happily, by public transport, which is electrified, including trains where I live. These changes, like those of many of my friends and colleagues, have encouraged other lifestyle changes. For example, because we have solar panels on our roof, we make hay while the sun shines. We change the time at which we do certain things and therefore try to use only carbon-free energy if we can.
I could never convince the noble Lord that that was lifestyle change, that the technology was driving lifestyle change and that people’s decision to adopt this technology was not so that they could continue to live as they had but to change and live a more carbon-free lifestyle. I do not think that I ever will convince him. That is, I think, why he was in a minority of one in relation to the point that he made. The last time that we debated this issue, the noble Lord made an almost-identical speech. I was pleased to see that it got quite good coverage in certain media the next day; I suspect they may have been briefed in anticipation and I hope that they have been again today, so that this can be published. The fact of the matter is that, in the committee, all but one of us agreed that the report was a reflection of the evidence that we had heard and that the statistics that we quoted—and shared by the Government—reflected the reality.
I am almost out of time, but I had hoped to make one point, which I will make by referring to another report. We have already heard of the Chris Skidmore independent review, which the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, referred to. There is an important conclusion in that report, which I came to in the course of listening to the evidence and being on this inquiry. The review by Chris Skidmore echoes a point that was made in the committee’s report about local action being the key to the delivery of net zero. His review highlighted:
“Taking a more locally led, place-based approach can deliver a net zero transition with more local support, better tailoring to local needs, and bring economic and social benefits”.
Having heard the overwhelming evidence that I did in this context, I have come to the conclusion that the future for net zero relies on activating our communities to work in that way to challenge these issues, that we should do this with the support of civic society and local government, and that the Government should enable that.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and her committee for this important and topical report. I warmly commend the recommendation to develop a public engagement strategy to inform the population about the need for greater behavioural change and greater awareness of the risks.
So-called climate anxiety has taken centre stage. I say this as a parent of four young ones, who are all acutely conscious that the seemingly inevitable climate crisis is here and that the ambition of maintaining and restricting global warming to less than 1.5 degrees is now, sadly, beyond our reach, with several leading scientists forecasting that—I stress—without significant efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, global average temperatures could rise by between 2.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius, with catastrophic implications.
There is no denying that by adopting more sustainable behaviours we can mitigate some of the worst effects of climate crisis, reduce the depletion of resources and promote environmental well-being. Reducing the information gap around individual carbon footprints is essential. It is important to understand that being climate positive does not just mean driving an electric car and switching off the lights when you leave home. I welcome the Department for Education’s initiative to promote sustainability and to focus the climate change strategy on children and businesses. Indeed, we recently had a Topical Question on what can be done to improve the awareness of SMEs so that they embrace the ambition of getting down to zero carbon.
Transportation accounts for only 29% of global emissions. The largest contributor is the built environment, which accounts for a staggering 40%. The challenge is now how we can change the narrative around which personal decisions and behaviours can truly move the needle. I welcome the Government’s commitment to spend over £6.6 billion to improve energy efficiency and the decarbonisation of heating in homes. New carbon capture and storage technologies, smart grids, sustainable agriculture solutions and carbon removal technologies can all play an important role, but for these technologies to be effective we need supportive policies. We need more investment and collaboration among the stakeholders. As the noble Lord, Lord Howell, mentioned, climate-friendly appliances such as ground source heat pumps can reduce one’s individual carbon footprint, but they continue to be significantly more expensive than gas-powered alternatives, with a huge upfront cost.
Amid a cost of living crisis, I welcome initiatives such as the ECO+ scheme to incentivise the implementation of these technologies. I am a great advocate of the circular economy and I welcome a change in this paradigm, with materials flowing back into the economy, where they can increase our productivity. What are the Government doing to work with organisations such as the Carbon Disclosure Project, which is gathering information around the constitution of our economy’s carbon footprint? How can they encourage further monitoring?
In conclusion, while I warmly welcome the report and the public engagement strategy, its effectiveness will depend on an approach of shared, joined-up thinking between Governments, businesses, local authorities, civil society and individuals. As with the US Inflation Reduction Act, we need to think bigger, think bolder and act now.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I remind noble Lords that there is an advisory time of four minutes. We are going well over in some circumstances.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the chairman and those who served on the committee on their excellent report and their work, and the experts who contributed. I declare my interests on the register—mostly that I am honorary president of National Energy Action. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, ably set out why the report is so important—the need to change behaviour and especially how we heat our homes, what we eat and how we can, I hope, rely on government advice to help us in that regard. I am not asking my noble friend to take up the role of nanny, which would not be welcome, but the Government should provide certain parameters.
I should like to draw some parallels with water. After the terrible floods of 2007, where surface water appeared substantially for the first time, there was the Pitt review. Most of its recommendations have been implemented, though not all. There was the Kay review on competition, which was brought into effect—apart from the recommendations on household competition. Then there was the Walker review. Perhaps because she was the only woman to have contributed to this trio, nothing ever happened about its proposals on water efficiency. The link between water efficiency and energy efficiency is close and I hope that it will come out of this report on an ongoing basis. However, it was disappointing that that issue was not progressed at the time of the Walker review.
The chairman of the committee and others have referred to transport, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Birt. I am not going to change any time soon to an e-vehicle because there are simply no means of charging it in rural parts of the north of England. We must address—my noble friend Lady Vere was kind enough to reply on this—the dearth of power points in rural areas. The other confusion on the part of manufacturers is: why should everyone be encouraged to change to electric vehicles when, at the same time, we are told that hydrogen is coming on stream? Which is it? As an MEP, I was heavily involved with the car industry when it made a massive, world-changing investment in diesel. Now we are being told that from 2030 we can no longer buy petrol or diesel cars.
I should like to refer briefly to electricity companies behaving badly. The unit charge we can control but the standing charge that goes to the distributors is something over which we have no control whatever. I hope my noble friend the Minister will look closely at the fine of £9.8 million imposed on SSE by Ofgem for overcharging the National Grid at a time when it was asked to produce less electricity when it should have been clear, as Ofgem said, that SSE was violating its licensing conditions. That is unacceptable. We each are paying 3% on our electricity bills for renewables. If the electricity companies are going to behave badly, that is not good enough.
I welcome the fact that the Government are looking to have more food produced locally, especially food meeting high environmental and animal welfare standards but, please, can these be reflected in international free trade agreements? Currently they are not in the agreements with Australia and New Zealand.
To conclude, we need clear guidance for waste collection and all these other issues to achieve the core theme of the report—behavioural change is in our hands—but with a clear steer from the Government.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I have sympathy with my noble friend Lord Browne and hope he does not feel that he drew the short straw in his place on the speakers’ list. I am at risk of endangering my four minutes but, to carry on the film analogies that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford began, the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, reminds me of “Last Tango in Paris”.
For those of us who have not seen this film, it is very lewd, with a particularly interesting scene involving butter. I would suggest that, if noble Lords are of a nervous disposition, they do not watch it. I saw it in Edinburgh many moons ago and, halfway through the butter scene, the lady in the front row, who had a pearls and twinset look about her, leapt to her feet and shouted, “Filth, pure filth!” Then she sat down and watched the rest of the film right through to the end. The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, is a bit like that, but he is still with us, and we very much value him on the committee.
I absolutely believe that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, is right that behaviour change includes technology adoption. If we do not get the mood music right for the public in adopting new technologies, anything that deters them in terms of ease or price signals will stop them doing the right thing.
The thing that staggered me about this inquiry, which was excellently chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, our wonderful chairman, was the strength of feeling among the public. They were very clear that they wanted to know what the highest priorities were, what they could do about them and what the Government were going to do to make it cost effective, affordable and easy for them to change their behaviour. People were very clear. We know what the four priorities are, so we could in fact tell them that they are about travel, eating, purchasing, and heating and fuelling our houses. But the Government were not keen to meet the public expectation that they were clear about—that they would take a leadership role in being clear about those priorities and say what they should do in each of those four areas. In fact, we were very firmly told that the Government were going to go with the grain of public behaviour.
So we need a strategic approach. Above all, as well as removing barriers by means of incentives, pricing schemes, regulation and other mechanisms, we need a proper marketing strategy. We spend less on this highest global priority in marketing what we want to happen and what the public want us to tell them should happen than Apple does in marketing its next global product. We have really got to get to the point where marketing and behaviour change are a fundamental part of the policy basket of instruments. I was incredibly upset by the evidence that we got from the Government Communication Service; it was underwhelming in the extreme, and we really have to look at what that service is all about.
Just to finish—because I am conscious of time—with a heart-warming story, there was a thing called Climate Assembly UK, from which we took informal evidence. This was a bunch of folk who were selected from across the UK public to represent all ages and stages, political views and socioeconomic backgrounds, but mostly to represent everything from climate change deniers and flat-earthers to folk at the opposite end of the spectrum—green geeks. They worked together for a year to develop a consensus on a programme of action to respond to climate change. It was amazing how much consensus had developed among that group. It was clear that they were calling for some simple actions and for government leadership in promoting them. I leave noble Lords with some of their propositions —to buy only two pieces of clothing a year; to have only one long-range flight every two years; and to have a meat-free Friday. I commend them to you, but most of all I ask the Minister to tell us what the Government’s strategy is for behaviour change and when we might see it.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend for her very patient and expert steering of this vital new select committee through its first major inquiry and for introducing this debate so effectively. The science on climate change is very clear, and staying below 1.5 degrees looks almost impossible already. The need for action is urgent, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford has said. The Climate Change Committee has made it clear that we will not reach net zero unless everyone plays their part with changes in the way we all live—behaviour changes. The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, has a rather surprisingly limited view of what behaviour change is—it is about how we live, which includes using different technology.
Given the crisis, the Government seem distracted, unable to focus with sustained attention, clarity or resources on what needs to be done. They say they want to reach net zero but are not putting in place what is required. I am glad to see the new department for net zero—DECC never should have been disbanded— but where are the game-changing policies in this area, in the way that China and now the US, with the Inflation Reduction Act to which the noble Lord, Lord St John, referred, and the EU are taking forward?
The Government say they want to tackle climate change, but they shy away from assisting the public to make the choices that would help to enable that, as my noble friend and others have said. The Government have a major role to play: pointing the direction, redirecting industry. Therefore, it is welcome that they have said no new fossil-fuel cars should be sold by 2030. That redirects the car industry; now that industry is falling over itself to develop electric models. But the Government also need to make sure that this is feasible by putting the infrastructure necessary in place for this—charging points, for example, as the noble Lord, Lord Birt, made clear. This enables behaviour change.
One of the things we heard was worry about fairness and ensuring that things were affordable, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, mentioned. With the cost of living crisis and the economic consequences of Brexit and the pandemic, this further reinforces the need to invest in, for example, public transport. Housing was another area we examined. How are the Government ensuring that new houses meet certain standards, and what are they doing to bring forward the retrofitting of old building stock, in which people live their lives?
We heard quite a bit about heat pumps, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, indicated. On their implementation, we are far behind our neighbours on the continent—I was really surprised at the evidence we received as to how far they had gone. The grants for heat pumps nowhere near meet the cost of purchase and installation. The Government even have policies here where the perfect is the enemy of the good, by demanding that insulation, which is obviously worth while, goes alongside installation, further increasing the cost. If someone simply bought a gas boiler, they would not need to do that, and that needs to be examined.
As several noble Lords have said, Chris Skidmore has looked at whether the “guardrails”, as he puts it, are in place to meet the target of net zero by 2050. In terms of what the Government were doing to guide the population, we had to conclude that Chris Skidmore’s guardrails were pretty weak, even non-existent. I therefore look forward to hearing what the Minister says in his reply.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the Environment and Climate Change Committee and its chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, on its report, In Our Hands: Behaviour Change for Climate and Environmental Goals. It clearly addresses the twin crises of climate change and nature loss, and the role of government—although we as a country are committed to net zero by 2050—and it refers to the Committee on Climate Change about behaviours, drawing on the CCC assessment that 35% of emissions reduction up to 2035 require decisions by individuals and households to adopt low-carbon technologies and choose low-carbon products and services, as well as reduce carbon-intensive consumption.
The report points out very clearly that the public are ready for leadership by the Government in this area, and the Government must do far more. It also speaks of the role of organisations in civil society and local authorities to work on this. Business can do a lot. I am an adviser to the Climate School, a wonderful initiative which trains employees in companies. When a company sets a goal of net zero by 2050, what does that mean to the employee and how can they understand the whole concept of climate change, net zero and what role they can play? Much more needs to be done on that. The report makes many recommendations about changing behaviour, including government needing to provide a positive vision and clear narrative. The information is not enough. It talks about fairness, which is absolutely true, and business having a critical role, and that is what I will focus on.
Of course, we have led the way by being the first country to legislate for reaching net zero with the Climate Change Act. In fact, 2019 marked the first year in which low-carbon electricity overtook fossil fuel power in the UK, and our offshore wind industry is respected around the world. In his wonderful report, The Economics of Biodiversity, Professor Sir Partha Dasgupta of the University of Cambridge says that nature is “our most precious asset” and that 1 million plants and animals are under threat of extinction. To quote my noble friend Lord Rees, an authority in this area,
“Our Earth is 45 million centuries old. But this century is the first when one species—ours—can determine the biosphere’s fate”.
I was privileged as president of the CBI to spend a lot of time at COP 26, where business played a much bigger role than ever before. An impact report from the goal 13 platform found that 79% of businesses believe that climate is a mega-trend and that 89% of businesses have at least one climate-related target. Almost two-thirds of FTSE 100 companies have committed to net zero by 2050. That is wonderful.
My noble friend Lord St John spoke about the circular economy. There is no better example of the circular economy than my own business and industry, brewing, where nothing goes to waste. A huge proportion of bottles are recycled to make bottles, spent yeast is used to make Marmite, spare grain is used for cattle feed, CO2 is captured and reused, and the water is treated and the effluent water reused.
Technology plays a major role, which the report refers to. At the University of Birmingham, of which I am chancellor, we developed the world’s first retrofitted hydrogen-powered train, which was up and running at COP 26 in Glasgow. His Majesty the King was on the train, as was our Prime Minister at the time.
We need to accelerate investment. There is a lot of investment, but we need to work much faster: we have not started building even one small modular reactor. We do not spend enough on R&D and investment: only 1.7% of GDP, versus the USA and Germany, which spend 3.1% and 3.2% respectively. Climate finance has not been addressed enough in this report. A huge amount of private finance needs to be addressed. All this change and transition, including with homes, will lead to the creation of 240,000 new jobs, a lot of which will be in SMEs.
To conclude, we should be looking forward to COP 28, led by its president, Sultan Al Jaber, the business ambassador, Badr Jafar, and Razan Al Mubarak, the IUCN COP 28 champion. To cite the president, there is a lack of finance. Some four times the amount of finance is required than is available at the moment, and we need “a business mindset”, as he said. The scale of the problem requires everyone working in solidarity. We need partnerships not polarisation, and we need to approach this with a clear rationale and execute a plan of action.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, I join others in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for her chairmanship of the committee and for securing this debate. I was grateful to be asked to join the committee during this inquiry on the retirement of our well-beloved Lord Puttnam.
The report concludes that the Government’s performance concerning the behaviour change needed to secure net zero by 2050 is inadequate. It has since been echoed with reports from the Committee on Climate Change and the Chris Skidmore review of the net zero strategy. The size of the challenge cannot be overestimated. There must be no delay. The climate emergency is of such magnitude that the Government should respond in similar fashion as was necessitated by the pandemic, as in recommendations 7 and 8. The costs of everyday transition towards decarbonisation must be recognised, not shied away from, as the costs of doing nothing are far greater. That balance must be recognised by everybody.
The challenge includes tackling environmental degradation, as recognised in the Dasgupta review. The significance of behaviours—how we behave—as opposed to doing activities must be recognised, as it includes attitudes and values. The Government’s response did not really seem to get this point, sounding almost on the complacent side, claiming to be already responding to the challenge with their policies and measures. They agreed, in the Net Zero Growth Plan of March 2023, that:
“The public will play a key role in the transition”.
Yet they are still to recognise the importance of behaviours with a serious public engagement strategy, as in recommendation 3—allocating increased spending on communications with information and education, and making affordable choices available.
The Government responded last year to the climate emergency with an array of strategies across all sectors of the economy, but in a somewhat scattergun approach, as exampled in the 10-point plan, and without recognising the importance of co-ordination and consistency across government, which is a key focus for the Cabinet Office. A full public engagement strategy was recognised in the Skidmore review, most notably in three of his 129 recommendations: to expand public spending and public reporting on net zero; to publish a public engagement strategy this year; and to create an office for net zero delivery. Once again, the Government were somewhat complacent in their response, stating that they were already doing the task.
The Government must recognise that a full, rounded public engagement strategy involves a deliberative process and methods. They must engage with the challenges in delivering behaviour change interventions faced by local authorities, the devolved Administrations, civil society and business. The Government have necessarily tackled the decarbonisation of the power sector, yet they still have far to go in decarbonising transport, especially aviation and shipping. They also have much to undertake to address the deficiencies in the built environment, especially in the housing sector, notably energy-efficiency measures and future homes standards. A key indicator of progress is provided by the BEIS public attitudes tracker statistics. The size of the behaviour change needed is revealed in two contrasting statistics: 54% of homeowners do not believe they need any more insultation, which contrasts with a statement by the Climate Change Committee that around 60% of the measures needed to reach net zero require changes to public behaviour. Climate change has already resulted in deep challenges with adaptation requirements to society’s way of life.
Defra’s adaptation programme has yet to address many key areas. Can the Minister indicate when the Government might publish the national adaptation programme and confirm that it will address the full range of climate risks to the UK with mitigating measures? To join up these strategies and action plans, what approach are the Government taking in their own behaviour to ensure that their policies towards achieving climate and emergency ambitions are clear and consistent? It certainly is not easy being green.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, I thank the committee for its important and wide-ranging report and the Government for their response. Particularly welcome is the assumption of both documents’ recommendation 38 that if there is to be a change in individual behaviour it involves engagement with all sectors of society. I believe that behaviour change is brought about by two main factors: a shared vision of the kind of world we want and an appeal to what is in our interest. Recommendation 65 talks about
“a shared vision of net zero and environmental sustainability”.
I suggest that, as stated, this is more in the nature of a goal, which is good in itself, but that a shared vision goes wider than that. I think we would all agree that at its heart this is a moral issue, for it concerns the well-being of our children and grandchildren and, not least, those people living in parts of the world at risk from rising sea levels and increasingly severe floods and droughts. I also suggest that it is a spiritual issue, for it concerns humanity’s place on earth and our attitude to nature, whether it is one of exploitation irrespective of consequences or one of respect for and co-operation with natural processes.
Those of my generation have, on the whole, been terribly slow in responding to the challenge which has been put to us at least since the 1960s, some 60 years ago now. A combination of blindness, indifference and short-term interests has left us now with very little time to act. On the other hand, as we know, many young people care deeply about the planet and what is happening to it. It matters to them. They have a vision, a genuine, serious care for the earth and its future, and for many of them it is a kind of spiritual vision. Not many of them claim to have an official religion, but they see this as a spiritual matter.
In that connection, I wonder whether the Government, in their public engagement strategy, should not be making more of the role that the different major religions in our country could play on this issue. Although religion is not fashionable in the media, there are large and significant Muslim, Hindu and Sikh denominations, in addition to the Christian denominations. I was very glad to listen to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford about what is going on his diocese. I believe that, in their different ways, all religions could play an even more prominent role, not just in achieving a particular goal but, behind that, in giving people a spiritual vision of what it is to be human in relation to the rest of the earth and in shaping an attitude of respect for the environment. There is one brief reference to faith groups in the recommendations, but I should like to see more being done by the Government—perhaps a behind-the-scenes initiative by the departments for business and local communities. I believe that faith groups could have a greater role in fostering that attitude of respect and co-operation with nature, which is so essential for the future and which lies behind particular goals as an overall vision.
A shared vision of the kind of world that we want is one major factor for change; the other is an appeal to what is in people’s best interest. This means that the Government must not be frightened of using their power to change behaviour, by both regulation and financial incentives and disincentives, as set out in recommendation 15 and elsewhere. The Government have a responsibility to use the power that they have, for this is not just an individual private matter but about the good of all. Not least, they must not be frightened of using their power in relation to business. In particular, given the fact that business is driven by what it thinks of as its interest—often seen in very short terms—the Government have a clear responsibility to be aware of corporate lobbying, as mentioned in recommendation 18, and to counter false claims and half-truths, as set out in recommendation 63. Self-interest can be shaped and guided but, sometimes, short-term interest has to be thwarted, and there will be occasions when the Government must be very clear and firm in relation to business.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to take part in this debate and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, on her chairing of this committee and the content of its inquiry. It is a novel and important subject, which really emphasises the importance of lifestyle and personal involvement.
Reading it through, I think the government response is rather sad, really. The Government seem to agree with everything the reports says, but say that they are doing it already and lots of money is being spent—that is about it. I do not think that is quite true. I am sad that there is not more discussion about the fuel duty and train fares debate. Obviously, the committee talked about net-zero air services—we have heard a few comments from noble Lords about that—and of course charging points, which we deal with quite often.
We need behaviour change, however. I want to concentrate my remarks on active travel, which is recommendation 32 in the report:
“The Government must deliver on its ambition to improve active travel infrastructure and local public transport systems by providing the necessary resources and supporting local government bodies to implement projects on the ground”.
Paragraph 64 of the Government’s response says:
“Government is investing more than ever before in walking and cycling”.
The National Audit Office has published, today, a report on active travel. The NAO says that the Government will miss all their targets for 2025 after years of stop-start funding. The report also reveals that there are new cuts of 20% year on year in revenue funding for active travel in 2023-24. This is the kind of money spent, for example, on Bikeability, which is training for school- children so that they can cycle more safely.
This comes on top of a three-quarter cut for dedicated capital spending, announced in March. It is good that the NAO supports active travel, but it says that there needs to be long-term ring-fenced funding to address its requirements. It goes on to say that those investments, which are quite small in transport terms, represent very high value for money—4.3:1—and contribute to many good targets in different departments. The sad thing is that it says that the Government will miss at least three of their four targets on active travel by 2025. These are increasing annual cycling stages and annual walking; increasing the percentage of children aged five to 10 walking to school; and increasing the percentage of journeys of under five miles in towns and cities that are walked, wheeled or cycled.
I could go on citing that NAO report for a long time and I hope noble Lords will read it—it has come out today. A statement in paragraph 64 of the response says:
“Government is investing more than ever before in walking and cycling”.
I am sure they can arrange for some figures to demonstrate that that is true, but it certainly is not enough and we need to be very careful and support the NAO and press the Government for some responses on this issue.
Lord Rees of Ludlow (CB)
My Lords, Governments are torpid in their response to the climate threat. This is, of course, because its worst impacts will not be manifest until the second half of the century, beyond the time horizon of political and even investment decisions. We are like the proverbial boiling frog, contented in a warming tank until it is too late to save itself.
Most of us do care about the life chances of children and grandchildren who will be alive in 2100, but even well-intentioned individuals feel helpless. Politicians respond to pressure from voters, and voters are responsive not to scientists but to charismatic influencers. I shall highlight a disparate quartet of these—first, Pope Francis, through his 2015 encyclical; secondly, our secular pope, David Attenborough; thirdly, Bill Gates; and, fourthly, Greta Thunberg. Thanks to those personalities, public opinion has shifted. More people care and the rhetoric of business has changed. Climate has gained prominence on the political agenda.
To take a small example, Michael Gove, when at Defra, introduced legislation to ban non-reusable drinking straws. He would not have done this had not David Attenborough’s TV series alerted millions of voters to the downsides of ocean pollution. Likewise, the public would accept regulations that constrain our driving, flying and eating behaviour, and they would support measures to nudge industry towards the circular economy. For instance, buildings with short-intended lifetimes contain materials such as girders and piping that are re-usable. Better still, of course, is to use timber rather than steel, and there has been remarkable progress in timber-frame buildings.
Achieving a net-zero target is a major technological challenge—let us not forget that—but it is a realistic challenge that could be met not just by the UK, which contributes only 2% of the world’s emissions, but by all the countries of the prosperous global North. However—crucially—that is not enough. By 2050, there will be 4 billion people in the global South. Their individual per capita energy consumption is currently less than a quarter of ours, but they will suffer most from global warming and its effects on food production and water. If they gain prosperity, as we surely hope, they could collectively by 2050 be using more energy than the global North does today. If that energy comes from fossil fuels, the world could then be as far from net zero as it is today, and the prospects dire for all, but especially for equatorial nations. It is crucial, therefore, that these nations do not track our trajectory of economic development but leapfrog directly to clean energy, just as they have adopted smartphones without ever having landlines. This benign scenario requires renewables, energy storage and perhaps nuclear to advance technically and fall in cost.
We in the UK contribute only 2% of the world’s emissions, but we could have more leverage if we led a campaign to establish a kind of mega-Marshall plan to stimulate these developments, best of all by collaborating with other countries in the global north. This is perhaps a kind of foreign aid that the public may well endorse ungrudgingly, and it could be to our economic benefit too.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rees of Ludlow, and his wise words. Like everyone else, I particularly congratulate my noble friend Lady Parminter, who I know feels that this area is very important, both in practice and in theory. I also congratulate the committee on its work. I congratulate too the Minister and the Government because the Minister has obviously been persuasive in that I have heard today that we have a net-zero objective for Ofgem, after many years of trying to persuade it. I was interested that Ofgem welcomed it, whereas, in the Energy Bill, we heard that it was against it—but there we are; it shows that things can change. I am sure that the Minister was very persuasive in that, so I thank him.
Coming back to the report, I echo very much the feelings and statements of many Members of this Grand Committee and this House that the overall view of the Government’s response is disappointing. Exactly as other noble Lords said, it goes through the list and says, “We’re doing it”, implying that they need to do no more—yet, in a way, it exposes those siloes of each of those areas within the department, not tying them together.
One of the things that we need to take into consideration—I do not think it was mentioned in the debate—is that, although we are being very successful, relative to the globe, at reducing our emissions, the vast majority of this so far has been because we have substituted gas for coal and, increasingly, renewables for gas. That has been easy because none of us have noticed it: we plug in our hairdryer, iron, washing machine or whatever, and they work just the same—we have not had to change anything whatever. Just maybe, despite the problems with the charging networks, we may have that opportunity with EVs as well, with the market and the convenience of EVs meaning that there can be a natural market change, like there was with iPhones, which we moved to without any persuasion from government. At that point, it gets a lot more difficult: we have to make changes that we will notice, which is why this report is so important.
I have great sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, said: technology will be an incredibly important part of this. But I do not think we know enough about that percentage split between behaviour and technology—he has obviously heard more evidence than me, and I am interested in that proportion. But, whatever it is, behaviour change will clearly be an important part of that mix, which is why I welcome that report. But, my goodness, we have to carry on with technology, which is why it is important that we get on with rejoining the Horizon programme now that we have the Windsor agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, mentioned the appalling level of R&D expenditure —we need to get that up generally as well. We need help with that for the next stage of decarbonisation.
I was particularly interested to read about the models that might already exist. I like the pensions one, although it is nothing to do with net zero. The Government successfully put in a process that was not obligatory: it sort of happened, and you had to positively say no if you did not want it. It has been very successful. This is one of those areas where you think about the future—maybe 20, 30 or 40 years ahead—when you are normally not too bothered about it. Unfortunately, with carbon, we already have those challenges.
The climate assembly was particularly important, and I ask the Minister whether we can proliferate those assemblies because, as I understand it from speaking to committee members, whatever their background, they have become great advocates of the cause because they were persuaded by the facts. It is also important to have a positive message about climate change. One big problem—I fall into this category—is that we can be incredibly pessimistic about the future of this planet. We all know the challenges of meeting the 1.5 degrees target. However, we need positive messages and to involve communities in particular.
I always mention this, but some 310 local authorities have declared climate emergencies. While some of that may be cynical or done just because it is fashionable, most of those authorities want to implement climate policies, but because of the incredible constraints on local authority expenditure and because those policies are not statutory requirements they tend not to happen much. That is one of the areas that we have to change. There should be more community and district heating schemes. My wife is a member of a parish council and has taken on the role of climate and nature advocate, but she has had to travel down the learning curve like thousands of others in similar positions. We are not spreading that knowledge.
Regulation is usually positive. Biodiversity net gain is a recent example and I congratulate the Government on that, but a main question around environmental regulation is enforcement. It is weak in the UK at the moment. We have been too slow on housing regulation, as others have mentioned.
I say to my noble friend that the one area about which I was slightly disappointed—it was mentioned also by the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria—was the biodiversity crisis, which is not mentioned a great deal in the report, and yet, although connected to climate change, is an equal challenge.
To conclude, we and the Government—this country—are able to show the leadership in this area that we have done as regards technology in terms of delivering on climate change. This should be one or our national missions globally, to be the place that shows that behavioural change is important, can work and can ease all the difficult political decisions that our colleagues at the other end of this building have to make to bring forward this agenda. What I would ask the Minister most is to come back to a strategy of public engagement. We do not have that and are not near it. Chris Skidmore has said that it is essential. Where are we on that? What will its content be? Will it be anything like this excellent report?
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by also thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the other members of the committee for producing a thorough and focused report. I was not a member of the committee but will set out my observations on its key findings and recommendations, and the Government’s response. No doubt, the Minister who follows me will tell me whether I have got it right.
Behavioural change is essential if we are to achieve climate and environmental goals and deliver wider benefits. The Government’s current approach to enabling behavioural change to meet climate and environmental goals is inadequate to meet the scale of the challenge. I draw on the Climate Change Committee’s assessment, which identified that 32% of emissions reductions up to 2035 require decisions by individuals and households to adopt low-carbon technologies and choose low-carbon products and services, as well as reduce carbon-intensive consumption.
While the Government have introduced some policies to help people adopt new technologies, these have not been replicated in other policy areas. There has been progress in some areas, but not all—the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, mentioned electric cars.
There is a reluctance to help people to cut carbon-intensive consumption. Time is not on our side, and there is too great a reliance on as yet undeveloped technologies. A quote that I liked in the report was from Sir Patrick Vallance, who said:
“Dreaming that something brand new will appear and save us by 2050 is not sensible”.
Priority behaviour change policies are needed in the areas of travel, heating, diet and consumption to enable the public to adopt and use green technologies and products and reduce carbon-intensive consumption. Polling shows that the public are ready for leadership from the Government in this space. The Government should provide clarity to individuals about the changes we need to make in how we travel, what we eat and buy and how we use energy at home, and they should articulate the many co-benefits to health and well-being of taking those steps.
A public engagement strategy, both to communicate a national narrative and to build support for getting to net zero is urgently required, but information is not enough to change behaviour. The Government need to play a stronger role in shaping the environment in which the public act through appropriately sequenced measures including regulation, taxation and the development of infrastructure. A behavioural lens must be applied consistently across all government departments, as too many policies, from planning and building standards to advertising regulations, are still encouraging high-carbon and low-nature choices. As the country faces a cost of living crisis, the Government must tailor behaviour change interventions to avoid placing a burden on those who can least afford it—a fairness clause. They must also work with the many groups and organisations at different levels of society which have a critical role in securing behaviour change for climate change and the environment. Behaviour change interventions will not be effective nor consistent unless existing structures for the cross-government co-ordination of climate and environment policy are overhauled and made more transparent and accountable to Parliament and the public.
The Government have responded. In September 2022, the Government were under Liz Truss. The one thing that she achieved during her premiership was commissioning Chris Skidmore to lead an independent review of net zero. The purpose of the review was to determine an affordable and efficient approach for the UK to fulfil its net-zero commitments, specifically an approach that was pro-business, pro-enterprise and pro-growth, which I have no doubt members of the committee would welcome. In January 2023, the review’s findings were published in the report, Mission Zero: Independent Review of Net Zero. The review praised the UK for the steps that it had taken towards achieving net zero. However, it warned that the Government, industry and individuals needed to
“act to make the most of the opportunities, reduce costs, and ensure we deliver successfully”.
In March 2023, the Government published their response to the recommendations made in that review. In their report, the Government agreed that “decisive action” was needed to seize the “major economic opportunities” that net zero could bring to the UK. The Government also addressed the review’s 129 recommendations. These included the following three recommendations. The first was to expand public reporting. The Government stated that
“there are many existing mechanisms to regularly scrutinise the government’s performance on net zero, including by Parliamentary Select Committees … independent bodies such as the National Audit Office, and … the Climate Change Committee”.
The second was to publish a public engagement strategy. The Government said that they had outlined their approach to public engagement in their net zero strategy. They also committed to providing additional details on public engagement “in the coming months”. This included plans to support public awareness through their digital platforms, to develop a road map outlining net-zero proposals, to establish a framework to “amplify net zero messaging” and to create an office for net zero delivery. The Government stated that the creation of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero meant that there was now a
“department dedicated to delivering on our ambitious climate ambitions and a senior ministerial voice at the Cabinet table”.
The impact of behaviour change, the actions taken by individuals or organisations to reduce their energy use, can be significant and an essential part of the journey. On the Chris Skidmore review, while we quite rightly have a duty to ourselves, to each other and to the planet to achieve net zero and halt the temperature increase, far too often the argument focuses only on that side of things and fails to acknowledge the opportunities that net zero can bring. The Skidmore review was scathing in its assessment of the Conservative Government’s failure to recognise the huge potential for economic growth and good, green jobs that come with the transition to net zero.
What would we do? As your Lordships know, Labour would put net zero at the heart of our plans for a fairer, greener future with our green prosperity plan and invest £28 billion per year in tackling climate change, growing the green economy and creating good, green, secure local jobs across the country. Last year, the independent Climate Change Committee warned that the Government’s current climate strategy will not deliver net zero and that credible government plans exist for only 39% of the UK’s required emissions reductions.
I conclude where I began: by congratulating the committee on its impressive report and ask the Minister whether he truly feels that the Government are ready for the scale and speed of implementation to achieve environment and climate goals.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, first, I join virtually every other speaker by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, on bringing forward this debate today, the committee on the report on the Government’s approach to enabling behaviour change, and the many businesses, local authorities, charities and others who contributed to its content.
I start by reassuring the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and my noble friend Lord Howell that we take very seriously the need to engage the public on net zero and the environment, and we recognise that achieving our goals will require changes not only to our energy systems and infrastructure but to our everyday life, such as the way we travel and heat our homes.
The Government will continue to engage the public on the challenge of delivery and on their role and their views, building on what I think are existing strong levels of public support. We very much view the transition to our goals as a joint effort between government, business and civil society. On this point, I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, that the transition must involve all society working together. We continue to work closely with partners in local authorities, voluntary sector organisations and, of course, crucially, business, which all play an extremely important role in how we use and choose different services.
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Lilley for his points on this matter, and I reassure him that our approach is to support the public in making these green choices in a way that maintains choice and freedoms, which includes adopting new low-carbon technologies and using energy technologies and services more efficiently—but emphasising the importance of individual freedom.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford asked how the Government’s energy and leadership on behaviour change match the scale of the crisis—I think that was how he put it. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, also asked about our strategy on behaviour change. I point both noble Lords to our net-zero growth plan and our environmental improvement plan, where we set out clear principles about how we will empower the public to make those green choices by making them significantly easier, clearer, and, crucially, more affordable, and we continue to work with industry to remove some of those barriers. The plans set out a consistent and co-ordinated approach for engaging the public across net zero and the environment, in both communicating the challenge and giving people a say in shaping future policies.
The purpose of the Government’s approach and the principles we have set out is not, again to reassure my noble friend Lord Lilley, to stop people doing things; it is about enabling people to do the same things differently and more sustainably—to make society greener by design, if you like. We also want the approach to support co-benefits—whether that is in health, well-being or, crucially, our wallets.
The noble Lords, Lord St John of Bletso, Lord Grantchester and Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, made points about our approach to public engagement and asked when we would publish a public engagement strategy. Again, I reassure noble Lords that, in the net zero-growth plan, we announced that we will set out further detail on how the Government will increase public engagement on net zero. As part of this work, we will develop a guiding framework on public engagement, in conjunction with partners and trusted messengers, of course, to amplify the net-zero messaging. In the net-zero growth plan, we committed to supporting public awareness of our actions through our various digital platforms, and we are developing a road map, setting out plans and proposals under net zero.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, asked about government plans to enable behaviour change at a local level and how we can take a place-based approach to the delivery of net zero. They both made good points on this. Again, the Government recognise that local authorities can and do play an essential role in driving local action. For example, the Government have provided funding for local on-street electric-vehicle charging infrastructure for all local authorities in England, and they have committed £470 million for local electric vehicle charging over three financial years, up to 2024-25. Of course, as I have said many times in this House, virtually all our energy-efficiency programmes are delivered through, and with the support of, local authorities and housing associations.
I thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, for highlighting the importance of working with trusted messengers, including faith groups. The above-mentioned public engagement framework will consider this point.
On the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, about Defra’s action on waste, it is important to balance the urgency with the scale of the change needed. We need to ensure that our policies are effective. In that respect, we are working to introduce extended producer responsibility for packaging from 2024, to move the cost of dealing with household packaging waste to businesses that supply that packaging. Emphasising the importance of getting it right, we of course look at what is happening in Scotland and aim for our deposit-return scheme to begin from October 2025, ensuring that consumers are able to redeem a deposit when they return a single-use drinks container. We aim to publish our response to that consultation on local authorities, providing a comprehensive and consistent service across the whole of England.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, referred to a carbon calculator and we have considered this recommendation. In fact, several carbon calculators are already in use, and we are exploring whether there is a user need for new content on net zero on GOV.UK, or whether there is a greater need for additional digital information, rather than a stand-alone calculator tool.
I agree with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Birt, about making green choices easier for consumers. We will seek to address all the major practical barriers to individual behaviours by removing frictions and minimising the disruption to people’s lives. We need to take people with us on this journey.
The transport decarbonisation plan commits to better integrating transport modes, including many more bus routes serving railway stations and improved integration of cycling and walking networks. To make green choices clearer, we aim to increase the provision of high-quality information to the public, including exploring how we better label products and services.
The noble Lord, Lord Birt, referred to the need to work together to achieve our behaviour-change goals, I reassure him that the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has a steering and co-ordinating function across government to deliver our net-zero strategy. Teams from across government continue to seek ways to support co-ordination across net zero and to support environmental, green choices.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and the noble Lord, Lord Birt, asked about the UK’s electric vehicle infrastructure network. In March 2022, the Government published their extremely ambitious electric vehicle infrastructure strategy, which sets out a coherent vision and commitments to accelerate the rollout of world-class electric vehicle charging networks and get charge points on to the ground more cheaply and quicker. The majority of EV drivers at the moment charge at home, and we expect that to continue, but we are also committed to ensuring that a robust public charging network is in place to enable long distance journeys and, of course, for the many people who do not benefit from on-site parking and need to charge on the street.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked about the Government’s action to reach net zero. The Government are committed to making their own estate and operations more sustainable and resilient, and the greening government commitments illustrate what they are doing to improve their environmental impact and promote greater efficiencies. I also point him to the public sector decarbonisation scheme, which is very successfully rolling out energy infrastructure improvements across the public sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referenced the Government’s commitment to active travel. I reassure him that the Government are committed to helping people to walk and cycle where they can, and that we are investing around £3 billion in active travel up to 2025, despite the efficiency savings needed due to global financial pressures. The Department for Transport has also recently established a new executive agency, Active Travel England, responsible for making walking, wheeling and cycling the preferred choice for everyone in England to get around, where they can.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rees, for raising the important issue of the circular economy. Again, we want to make it the norm to reduce, reuse and recycle. The previously mentioned policies on waste reform will play a key role in delivering that strategy. Alongside that, we continue to support key developing technologies, including funding the circular economy hub, which will establish circular innovation centres for industries including textiles, metals and chemicals.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh raised the importance of listening to people’s views on climate change across the spectrum and highlighted some of the work of the Climate Assembly UK. Of course, we listen to any views put to us by either individual members of the public or assemblies and we have the Public Attitudes Tracker and the People and Nature Survey for England, which inform us where the public are on these issues. We also regularly fund public workshops and deliberative dialogues to inform a wide range of policy areas, including, in recent years, on net zero, heating, transport decarbonisation, hydrogen, carbon capture usage and storage and advanced nuclear technologies.
As I have set out today, the Government recognise that achieving net zero and environmental goals has to be a shared endeavour, requiring action from everyone in society, including people, businesses and, of course, the Government. We are committed to taking practical steps to support the public to make green choices in a way that supports their choice but, crucially, maintains their fundamental freedoms. We will continue to take this approach across our net-zero and environmental policies to support the UK’s transition to a green and sustainable future.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
I thank all Members who have contributed to this excellent debate, including the noble Lord, Lord Lilley.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
Including, not especially. The noble Lord is never a pain. The whole point and value of a House of Lords Select Committee is to bring together people with different perspectives and values and from different parties. We look at the evidence, hear people’s views and come to an agreed position, which in this case was a majority position. The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, was in a minority of one. As we heard from the Minister, even he agrees with our definition of behaviour change. As the noble Lord, Lord Browne, rightly articulated, we see behaviour change as not just about cutting consumption—the 10% referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley—but about helping people adopt new technologies and services. The Minister’s definition of behaviour change was “enabling people to do the same thing greener”. The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, is in a minority of one. I am a Liberal Democrat; I am used to losing. It is time, as they say in “Frozen”, to let it go.
I thank the Minister for his response, although we could disagree about the pace of some of the things he mentioned. We have been calling for an extended producer responsibility scheme for many years. France had one about a decade ago, and the Government called their first consultation on an extended producer responsibility scheme in 2019, so the pace is pretty glacial when the challenge is so big.
However, we are pleased to hear that the Government are at last going to be getting together a net-zero strategy. This needs to be shared endeavour. People around the Room have talked about the need to bring on board local authorities, civic groups, faith groups and businesses, but the only people who can offer that leadership are the Government. We hope that they will accept that people out there are crying out for change. They want to do something about climate change, and they want the Government to lead. The Government have made some good baby steps but need to move much faster and with much greater depth if we are not going to continue having policies that are high-carbon and low-nature. As the noble Lord, Lord Birt, said, we need far greater co-ordination across government to achieve that. I thank the Minister for what he is trying to do in certain areas, but the Government need to do far more, and the evidence of our behaviour change inquiry shows that, unless the Government help people to change their behaviour, we are not going to meet the net-zero goals that the Government have set.
Science and Technology Superpower (Science and Technology Committee Report)
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Brown of Cambridge
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the Science and Technology Committee “Science and technology superpower”: more than a slogan? (1st Report, HL Paper 47).
Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to introduce for debate this Science and Technology Committee report on the UK as a science and technology superpower. Before I start, I declare my interests as a non-executive director of two UK technology companies: Ceres Power and Frontier IP.
The Science and Technology Committee is highly engaged, and I thank everyone on the committee at the time for their significant contributions to the final report. As ever, huge credit is due to the committee’s staff, our former clerk George Webber, Thomas Hornigold and Cerise Burnett-Stuart, who did so much of the hard work in managing the consultation and the witnesses and in preparing the report.
The committee conducted a broad-ranging inquiry into the UK science and technology ecosystem, centred around the Government’s ambition to make the UK a science superpower by 2030. The inquiry considered: defining UK priorities as part of a science and technology strategy; international aspects of the strategy; the organisational structure of UK science, including the roles of UKRI, government departments, Cabinet sub-committees and the Civil Service; the target to boost R&D spending to 2.4% of GDP; and the role of government as an investor in technology companies.
The inquiry also motivated a shorter follow-up inquiry into the people and skills in STEM, concluding with a letter to Ministers, to which we may also refer in this debate. The inquiry ran from February to July 2022, taking evidence from a wide range of UK and international science policy experts, researchers, public research establishments, universities, private companies, start-ups and technology investors. We also heard from civil servants, chief scientific advisers—including Sir Patrick Vallance and Dame Angela McLean—the chief executive of UKRI, research council heads and Ministers.
I will summarise the key messages from our report. There is a strong consensus that science, technology and innovation have a key role to play in the delivery of economic growth, improved public services and strategic international advantage. It is clear that the UK still has a strong science and technology base to build on. When the report was written, some welcome steps had already been taken, such as setting the 2.4% target, increasing funding for UKRI in government departments and establishing new bodies like the National Science and Technology Council—NSTC—as a sub-committee of the Cabinet, and the Office for Science and Technology Strategy, the OSTS. My apologies in advance for the acronym soup that this speech will now turn into.
However, the report identified many key concerns about the implementation and delivery of a science strategy, many of them familiar—indeed, some we might even call perennial problems. The first that concerned us was that the “science superpower by 2030” slogan was vague and without specific outcomes. We did not know what being a science superpower was intended to feel like. How would it be different?
Although numerous sectoral strategies exist across government, they did not appear to fit into a clear, prioritised plan. The UK cannot be “world-beating” at everything. We urged clarity about which capabilities the UK wanted to develop domestically and where it would collaborate or access. These debates remain lively, with the announcement of £900 million for exascale computing and the debate over a sovereign AI model, for example. Linked to this was the lack of a joined-up international approach. We cannot be a science superpower in isolation—collaboration and scientific openness are fundamental—but the UK remained out of Horizon Europe, and other changes, such as the reduction in ODA support, high visa costs and complex processes, risk the UK’s reputation as a destination that welcomes top international science talent and as a desirable partner in international collaborations.
On increasing complexity and lack of clarity, the committee felt that bodies like the NSTC and OSTS would provide strategic direction, but their interactions with other key bodies like UKRI were unclear and risked adding to bureaucracy. There has been inconsistency and short-term thinking, which is anathema to R&D and developing new sectors of the economy. This is exemplified by the scrapping of the industrial strategy after just a few years.
There is an urgent need for scientists, technologists and engineers, both trained domestically and welcomed from abroad. There is the challenge of scale-up: although some commercialisation metrics, like numbers of start-ups, are improving, it remains challenging for companies to scale up here, especially for those requiring significant capital investment. The recent comment by Oxford PV’s chief technology officer that the UK was the “least attractive” place to build its new factory for perovskite solar cells is a stark reminder that we continue to see companies built on ground-breaking UK science listing overseas.
As regards engaging the private sector and increasing private sector investment in R&D, a range of areas for policy reform have been identified but details of how this will work—indeed, of how the impact will be different from previous approaches—have not been set out, and the Government’s own role as a direct investor in technologies was also unclear. Disappointingly, the private sector witnesses we heard from indicated that the sector did not feel that it had been engaged in the development of the UK’s science and technology strategy. As inflation worsened during the course of the inquiry, concerns were raised about the cost of conducting research and that R&D budgets may be an easy target for departments and Governments looking to make short-term savings at the expense of long-term prosperity.
Our report made a number of recommendations. We asked for further definition of the science and technology strategy, with specific outcomes in priority areas and, critically, with an implementation plan so that it was about not just targets but action. We wanted the science and technology superpower ambition to be defined with specific metrics and suggested an independent body to monitor progress. We wanted more Cabinet-level agreement and focus on science and technology policy with a Science Minister in Cabinet and more frequent meetings of the NSTC. We wanted to see the UK rebuild its reputation as an international partner, starting with association with Horizon Europe.
We asked for clarity on how the Government were going to use their range of policy levers to stimulate private investment in R&D and more detail how tax credits, pension fund rules and procurement would need to change to support private investment in R&D and especially in scale-up companies. We suggested that reforms could be driven by specific taskforces in each area, headed by clearly accountable individuals, providing a single point of contact for stakeholder engagement. Our people and skills letter focused on four key areas: the domestic skills gap; the precariousness of research careers; visa policy for scientists and STEM workers; and our ability to retain and recruit science teachers and educators.
A great deal has happened in the year or so since this report was published, some of which I am sure some of us would rather forget. However, more positively, this includes the establishment of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and the appointment of a Secretary of State for Science. This is a positive development in giving science and technology a strong voice in Cabinet, but cross-departmental co-ordination through NSTC will remain critical. We look forward to hearing more from the Minister at a future appearance before our committee about her role and responsibilities and how the new department will interact with the rest of the science landscape in government and further afield.
The Windsor framework has allowed Horizon Europe negotiations to resume, and the committee urges the Government to associate at the earliest possible opportunity. The Government have published Science and Technology Framework, which sets some key targets and outcomes across 10 different science and technology areas and, although not all of them are measurable metrics, substantially builds on and defines the science and technology superpower agenda, as we urged in our report. We are promised a
“clear action plan for each strand”
by summer 2023, so we look forward to seeing them soon. Given that delivery will be overseen by the NSTC, we also hope to hear that it is meeting more regularly.
Science and Technology Framework also sets out new, if broad, priority areas including quantum, AI, engineering, biology, semiconductors and future telecoms, alongside
“life sciences, space, and green technologies.”
That is a slightly odd mixture of specific technologies and whole industry sectors, but it is a start in defining priorities for the UK. The Government say that DSIT will oversee strategies in each area, with some, like the semiconductor White Paper and AI White Paper, recently published, and associated packages of funding for semiconductors and life sciences announced.
This goes some way towards addressing our concerns that the UK’s science and technology strategy was insufficiently specified, but concerns about the scale of investment remain. For example, the semiconductor strategy announced £1 billion in funding, compared to the US support under the CHIPS Act, which totals some $52 billion, and the EU equivalent, which will amount to about €43 billion. Cambridge-based Arm is still planning to float in the US, despite government efforts. On green technologies, the approximately $400 billion investment under the Inflation Reduction Act in the US and efforts by the EU are driving a step change, which the UK has not yet responded to. It is difficult to see how we can be world beating without at least world-class investment. One has to ask whether the UK may be spreading itself too thinly by trying to compete in all these areas of science and technology. In this context of renewed industrial strategies worldwide, Make UK’s recent criticism of the UK’s lack of a long-term industrial strategy, and hence lack of pull-through for commercialising technologies, echoes the concerns raised in our report.
A further development since our report has been the recalculation of R&D GDP statistics by the ONS. This has increased estimates of R&D spend from 1.7% to 2.4% of GDP. We welcome the Government’s acknowledgement that
“a stronger baseline does not change the underlying rationale for growing investment in R&D”
and urge them to adopt an appropriate new target. A science and technology superpower should spend more than the average OECD country. We welcomed the increase in funding for R&D at the time, and we are pleased to see that it was defended in subsequent Budgets, but double-digit inflation will absorb most of this increase, while high inflation and interest rates may deter business investment in R&D.
The overall landscape of science policy and publicly funded research in the UK is responding to some major recent reviews, including the Grant review into UKRI and the Nurse review into the research and development landscape. Many of the recommendations from the Nurse review echo our own. We look forward to seeing how DSIT, UKRI and the NSTC will drive forward the recommendations from these reviews. It is encouraging to see that some promises of reform of public procurement, regulation for innovation, tax credits and intellectual property are under way. Sir Patrick Vallance’s review of regulation for emerging technologies is a positive development, and we wait to see how its recommendations are implemented.
Overall, there are promising signs that the Government view science and technology policy as a crucial area to get right. We agree that the potential is there, but the scale of the challenge must not be underestimated. Some of the recent changes are encouraging, but there is much more to do across the whole of government. Ensuring that “science and technology superpower” does not become another forgotten Panglossian political slogan will need clear strategy, commitment and co-ordination across government, business engagement, internationally competitive levels of funding and an unrelenting focus on delivery.
I shall finish by asking the Minister three specific questions: first, what is now holding up our association to the Horizon programme and when is this likely to be resolved? Secondly, what has happened to the Office for Science and Technology Strategy in the process of forming the new Department for Science, Innovation and Technology? Thirdly, will the Government be developing a science superpower skills strategy? I beg to move.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate, as it was to be a member of the Science and Technology Committee when we undertook this inquiry. It is a pleasure to follow my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, who eloquently set out the extent of the report’s findings so effectively. I echo her in thanking all the staff of the committee who did such excellent work supporting our inquiry. I declare my technology interests as set out in the register.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, did such an effortless job in covering the ground of the report, I would like to describe how I see our findings in five words. We need all five: clarity; long term; international; investment; and implementation. Perhaps the most powerful phrase of all came from Sir Patrick Vallance when he talked about the need for a laser focus on implementation. If we take those five words—those five pillars—what might that look like in reality?
The noble Baroness, Lady Brown, rightly highlighted the importance of regulation and the Vallance review into regulation in this area. I believe that the positive power that regulation can have to support innovation and technology in this country should not be underestimated for one second. We can look recent examples such as what we with the telecoms industry to regulate to enable mobile telephony in this country and what we did even more recently with the fintech sandbox to effectively enable in a regulatory environment so many scale-ups and start-ups to come through. What is the best measure of success for that regulatory sandbox? It has been replicated in well over 50 jurisdictions around the world. That is the positive potential that we have.
Let us put the “science and technology superpower” phrase to one side for a moment. We have, in truth, a real opportunity in the UK for science, technology and innovation. That comes from the great good fortune of the combination of common law, the financial centre in London, the English language, geography, time zone and many other factors. None of that should in any sense take us into a state of believing that we are a superpower, but we should fully appreciate the possibilities that it gives.
What might that look like with a particular sector? AI is much talked of at the moment, but if we can get safe and secure rules, it could enable positive growth in this country. We heard from the Prime Minister only days ago along the lines that if we are to grapple with and solve the problem of AI, we must do this together, not just the companies, but countries. That sounds pretty positively international to me, and that has to be the right approach.
Will the Minister say where specific sectoral strategies, such as the AI strategy, fit into an overall coherent approach across all sectors, all areas and all opportunities, not least, as we have already heard, semi-conductors but quantum and DLT, to name just three? How do we enable all this to fit together? I believe that so much comes down to having innovation right through every Whitehall department, a golden thread of innovation running through every single department. It is that cross-Whitehall working point again. I believe that the difficulty is that we have only ever had cross-Whitehall working twice, once for the Olympic and Paralympic Games and a second time for Covid. It has happened only twice, but look at the results that we had when we got that cross-Whitehall working. We had the very best of our Civil Service and the very best of our state. The possibilities are immense for the United Kingdom but, ultimately, what are science and technology superpowers? They are not nations; rather they are connection, collaboration, coming together and co-creation. That is what we need to be focused on. Tout le monde, if you will. I think we all must will it.
Lord Winston (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, for her excellent chairmanship of this committee and the work we got through. I also thank the wonderful team behind her. I want to suggest first of all that one of the great risks to the Government is that they start to feel very self-congratulatory. I feel that the idea of the word “superpower” was disastrous. If you talk to average scientists working in laboratories, they were horrified at it because they felt that it was yet again an example of the British Government talking themselves up without any data.
One issue is that we need to have a serious review of our international standing, which would be quite informative. I remember that some years ago, when I was a member of the UKSRC, we spent a lot of time each month looking at that standing at regular stages and trying to work out where we were doing well and where we were doing badly and we reacted in consequence. I do not know whether that still goes on in government, but it is certainly not mentioned in the Nurse review.
We have been talking about pathways to impact for a long time. One problem with impact is just what the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, said: innovation. We should forget about innovation. Innovation is a word that is so easily bandied around. What we are talking about is basic research, because it is the data that we get from basic research, not innovation, which really matters. The fact that we end up trying to suggest that we are going to change our economy with innovation because of the use of science in universities tends to be detrimental. I will come back to that in just a second.
The accent on financial value puts some academics off research. Indeed, I emphasise that the word “innovation” does not ring much with many people. In saying this, I declare my interest in a company called Startransfer, which is looking at some aspects of trying to change embryo culture. It is registered as a company, but nonetheless I still feel that the innovation side is really unimportant. It is the research that we are doing which will be important.
A key question that I want the Minister to answer is about the assessment of a project afterwards. When we talked to the people in charge of UKRI, they talked about the first 20% of grants being awarded. It would be very interesting to know whether those grants are tracked long term, what happens to them and whether they have the pathway to impact that they say they do in the application.
More importantly, I would argue that we are losing a lot of people in research. If 20% of our applications to UKRI are working, that means that 80% of scientists working in really good universities are not getting funded by a key body that is essential to their career. That is a very important consideration for the Government, and it seems to me that, unless we track what happens to the next 20%, the people who do not get a grant, we are failing in our duty to the whole situation.
I remember one of my colleagues who was working in my laboratory for a long time on splice sites, which was not very popular at the time, spending a year doing three different applications, none of which was successful. Eventually, he left without a research grant, and of course he has now retired early. Five or six years later, we are starting to see that the work that he was doing was really brilliant; it is now being recognised internationally, but of course it was never funded. That is important, too.
Finally, we need to be much more aware about UKRI. I did not think that we were doing this at all well, and we did not get the answers that we needed in the committee about researchers getting feedback from the organisation. When I was working in the United States, if you put in for a grant to the American equivalent for health research, you could phone up and get somebody to speak to who would give you some advice about how you might make your project more effective and successful as well as more topical and relevant to what the body was trying to do. We need to do that, and that goes with public engagement, which we have already been through in the previous debate.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, it was an honour to be a member of the committee, and I pay tribute to our chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, and our very helpful staff. We heard compelling evidence that, desirable though it may be, the ambition of the UK to become a science superpower is not on track. There is not much time, so I shall just make a few points.
The government response announced that we have reached the target of 2.4% of GDP spent on R&D. However, all our witnesses agreed that we must continue to keep pace with other nations if we are to reach the Government’s goal of becoming a science superpower by 2030. How are the Government tracking what other nations are doing?
Ten months has passed since the publication of the report, and we now have DSIT, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. One of our recommendations was about the Office of Science and Technology, which has not met many times nor produced any major papers. It has now been moved to DSIT and the Secretary of State will decide its remit. Can the Minister tell us when that will be published and how it will interact with the National Science and Technology Council, which I am glad to say has survived the reorganisation?
To achieve the Government’s objective, we need to be open to the brightest and best from abroad, but we have the most expensive and unwieldy visa system among comparable countries, apart from Australia and New Zealand. Additionally, successful applicants and their dependants must pay upfront for health services for the whole period of the visa. This is a substantial disincentive. The Government denied that our system costs more, which is blatantly not true, according to their own table, but said that the immigration system should be paid for by the users and not the taxpayer. We have asked for details of the actual costs attributed to the relevant visas, but these have not been supplied. Is it the case that scientific visa applicants are subsidising other functions of the Home Office?
The Government rejected our recommendation that health costs could be paid in annual instalments, saying that this would be too onerous for the Home Office and the NHS. It may be too onerous for the Home Office, but it cannot be beyond the capability of the NHS, because it already has to verify the eligibility of foreign visitors to use our health services. Can the Minister justify the Government’s attitude?
The Government want to become a regulatory superpower. The committee accepted that regulation can make countries more attractive to investors by indicating the direction of travel, but companies operating in international markets are concerned about regulatory divergence. We recommended that the Government should work with industry and the research base to identify the areas in which the UK can take a global lead, because deregulation for its own sake will not automatically spur innovation. Apparently, DSIT will be responsible for regulation of AI in a “pro-innovation fashion”. Will the Minister explain how taking a lead on regulation will encourage innovation without the potential downsides of divergence?
Turning to homegrown people and skills, we heard about the lack of routes for technicians, referred to as the gap in the middle. Higher-level apprenticeships can fill the gap. The committee recommended that higher-level apprentices should be given the financial support to enable them to move around the country to find an appropriate place—like university students. The Government’s response mentions a few small bits of support, but they hardly add up to what the committee had in mind. Can the Minister do better?
Finally, if we are to recruit more STEM graduates, we need more specialist teachers. There is a jumble of incentives for IT, chemistry and physics teachers, but nothing for specialist maths teachers, particularly in the light of the Prime Minister’s objective of having all young people study maths until they are 18. You cannot do that without teachers, so can the Minister say how it will be achieved?
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I, too, add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, for her comprehensive and, as usual, well-articulated speech. It is a pity that the Government in their response to the report did not recognise that its recommendations are an excellent blueprint for making the UK a global leader in science and technology. In my brief contribution, I shall focus on one recommendation relating to the need to develop global science partnerships, where the Government have not, as yet, a clear policy, without which their ambition for us to be a science superpower and for the UK to be a global Britain—terms often used by the Government—will not be accomplished.
Superpowers in defence, security and foreign policy use their power for greater influence in the world. That applies equally to countries that are leaders in science and technology, which position themselves to have a greater global impact. Collaboration is at the heart of being a science superpower. Acting in the national interest and for global benefit is not in conflict when it comes to research.
Our membership of the EU’s Horizon programmes allowed us to be one of the world’s leading countries for global partnerships in science and technology. We became the destination of first choice for young, talented, ambitious researchers. Many stayed on, were welcomed and went on to become principal investigators, some even winning prestigious awards, including Nobel prizes. Securing the UK’s research relationship with Europe, as has already been mentioned, is very important, and I hope the Government will pursue that and succeed, but we must also forge new relationships beyond Europe.
Freedom of movement of scientists to the UK, not just from the EU but from the wider world, demonstrated that the UK was open to talent, without barriers or high cost to individuals. Our open border to scientific talent is now closed, driven more by our immigration policy, as described by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, than by our ambition to be a global leader in science. Visas, health premiums and other costs, and now possible restrictions on families being able to accompany, are policies that make the UK seem an unwelcoming and expensive country. As highlighted by many, such as the Wellcome Trust. the ABPI, the Royal Society, et cetera, the UK needs to articulate more clearly its policies of global co-operation that will attract science talent to the UK.
Some key principles should guide this policy. The UK must be open, creating an environment where ideas can flourish and talent is welcome, creating a globally connected science community. The UK must build networks around the world and drive the policies that make our country the centre of those networks in a collaborative way. There is a need for more strategic thinking that allows a small country such as the UK to be an important partner in big, global projects. We need to use the UK’s influence for the global good and explore more the soft power of science collaboration. In this respect, stopping the ODA programmes by cutting funds gave completely the wrong message. Building a reputation—the one we had in the not-too-distant past—as the go-to research partners of choice for talented individuals and countries will not only supercharge our domestic research but attract foreign investment and talent.
My time is running out, so I ask the Minister: when will the Government publish a strategy for global partnerships in science and technology and remove current immigration barriers?
Lord Wei (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, for tabling this debate and ably chairing our Select Committee, and to the team supporting it. I declare an interest as a member of the committee, as an adviser to Future Planet Capital, which invests in the UK and global venture ecosystem for innovation, and as an adviser to or being on the board of a number of tech-related start-ups such as Sweetbridge EMEA and Dot Investing.
The report rightly highlights areas where the UK must improve to achieve its ambition of becoming a science and technology superpower, whether you define that in terms of the amount of innovation generated, the number of patents, ideas or even Nobel prizes, the value of ideas commercialised or simply our influence. The report highlights the areas that are key to success: increasing R&D funding; forging closer ties between academia and industry and between different parts of government, industry and academia; changing the way visas are charged for; and supporting start-ups to scale up. But without action, “science and technology superpower” remains merely a slogan. The Government must turn pledges into progress if the UK is to strengthen its position as a global leader in innovation.
However, even if we succeed in these areas, the UK faces structural challenges in the size of its domestic market, in access to capital markets for innovation in the City, in talent, in commercialisation expertise and in other resources, which the report acknowledges by rightly highlighting priority areas that we need to focus on. Our venture ecosystem, while thriving, remains small-scale in global comparison, although there have been laudable recent attempts to ramp this up by working with larger investors such as sovereign wealth and pension funds and insurers.
Our ageing population means taxation policies must account for the needs of tomorrow as well as today if we want sustainable public funding for R&D and education. We must pick our battles in areas where we can differentiate ourselves and lead. Therefore, to get bang for our buck, we should welcome a focus on areas such as artificial intelligence and machine learning, space and satellite technology, fintech, energy transition technologies such as nuclear, renewables and battery storage, and precision medicine and life sciences.
The report could have gone further in articulating how the UK can harness its advantages of agility, expertise and a focus on global impact to overcome disadvantages of scale. We showed what is possible by developing a world-class vaccine at record pace. By being more flexible and sandboxing regulations more, attracting capital from overseas and matching it with our own large domestic investment sources, and harnessing government procurement in a smarter way, we can still edge ahead. Our time zone and legal and regulatory systems enable the UK to become a launch pad for new technologies and be a leader that can attract the finance needed to make firms global without their having to shift their base abroad.
It saddens me that we have not sufficiently built on the success of the Vaccine Taskforce led so ably by Kate Bingham, or gone further—simplifying regulation and procurement where we could have to achieve greater freedoms for pioneers and innovators to build world-class supply chains based on science and tech. I ask the Minister what we are doing to build on this success as part of our science superpower strategy. With vision, the right targeted investments and, crucially, the right culture, we can navigate the challenges of size through global leadership in emerging sectors.
In conclusion, while the report highlights actions the Government must take to achieve their bold ambition, the UK must go further in playing to its strengths, particularly by being more nimble and having STEM-savvy, trained regulators and policymakers. By targeting support for sectors where we can differentiate globally, providing access to talent and long-term funding, and enabling an agile approach to regulation and policy-making, the UK can overcome its disadvantages of scale and smaller market to cement its role as a pioneering science and innovation leader on the world stage.
If we match rhetoric with resource, “science and technology superpower” can become more than a slogan, but it will require the right attitude and culture. As it says in Zechariah chapter 4, verse 6:
“Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the Lord Almighty—you will succeed because of my Spirit”.
May the UK have that plucky spirit, which has served it well in the past and can do so again in the future.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I very much welcome the chance to take part in this debate, not least because I have recently joined the committee. I refer to my entry in the register of interests, but my main declaration is that I have an interest in science—not a financial but a real interest in it.
I congratulate the members of the committee, the chair and the staff on their work on this report. It makes some excellent recommendations, which I support. It takes a long time for Select Committee reports to finally get debated in your Lordships’ House. I would have preferred this debate to take place in the Chamber, thereby exposing more Members to what we are talking about, which would be a very good thing, but it is better than nothing to hold it here. I say to the Minister and the Government Whips: we need more debates about science and not fewer.
I thank all of the outside organisations that took the time to contact me and provide background briefings for today’s debate, including, in no particular order, the Royal Academy of Engineering, the Royal Society, the Campaign for Science and Engineering—I note its comprehensive report, published by the Foundation for Science and Technology—Cancer Research UK, the Protect Pure Maths campaign, Imperial College and, of course, our own House of Lords Library. With only a few minutes for each Member, there is no way in a million years that I can refer to all the points that have been made, but I want their contributions to be recorded in Hansard.
We hear a lot about the phrase “science superpower” —I first heard it in 2016—but what does it actually mean? We are all familiar with the basic strengths of science in the UK—the oft-cited statistics about the number of research papers in proportion to the population, the excellence of our world-class universities, and so on. We have strengths and, now, strategic objectives in a number of key areas, such as quantum computing, AI, engineering and synthetic biology, semiconductors, future telecoms, life sciences, space and green tech. We know all of that and, yes, the UK does punch above its weight in science, but we need a range of things to fall into place to turn the slogan of a “science superpower” into reality.
Since this report was issued, there have been some important structural changes in the way the Government now approach this. We have the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, which gives the Secretary of State a place at the Cabinet table. We had the Nurse review and the welcome step forward in making integrated recommendations for the future of the research landscape. We have an active and assiduous Science Minister, to whom I pay tribute. So we have this organisational structure, but I hope it will last. I recently asked the departed Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, whether it would have helped his job if all these things had been in place when he started. The answer was: yes, it would.
However, we need a sense of commitment and sustained effort. I give the Prime Minister credit for giving every appearance of being committed, but can the Minister tell us how often these Cabinet committees now meet and how often the Prime Minister chairs them? What is the role of the new Chief Scientific Adviser and technology adviser, and how do their respective offices work? If the Minister is able, can he tell us how ARIA is getting on?
In the short time available, I will emphasise one point, on Horizon Europe. Will the UK rejoin it, and when? It would be remiss of me not to mention this, as I have put down Question after Question in the House over almost the last year and a half, and it has been a deeply damaging story, to put it very mildly. If today’s debate can achieve anything, it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us a bit more about what exactly is going on. Are we still negotiating? Are we doing so in good faith, or are our fingers crossed behind our backs in the hope that plan B is perhaps better? Is the row just about different UK and EU assessments about the effect of not being a member for two years? It is not just about the money—it is about the collaboration, contacts and networks, as other Members said. It is not just in Europe that we should collaborate; we signed a memorandum of understanding on science and technology with the United States and, last December, the Government signed an important international science partnership fund in Japan.
Whatever else a “science superpower” may prove to mean, it will definitely involve making sure that the UK is open to worldwide scientific co-operation, making it the most attractive place in which to do science research and then developing and commercialising it for the benefit of the UK and humanity.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I am also a new member of the committee—I joined after this inquiry. I declare my unpaid interest as a council member of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. This is a vital report, extremely effectively and comprehensively introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown.
In the 2021 integrated review, the Government claimed that so-called “Global Britain” was a science “superpower”. By the time that this apparently once-in-a-generation review had to be refreshed, only two years later, the Government simply said that we had a “strategic advantage” in science and technology, if we specialised—Patrick Vallance had probably corrected the original claim. However, in neither review was the vital Horizon programme even mentioned. Despite scientists urging association, the problem at first was our potentially breaking international law in relation to Northern Ireland. Then it was whether Horizon was value for money; the Prime Minister was apparently sceptical about its value.
The head of one of our higher education institutions told me that before we left Horizon he would get many inquiries about potential collaboration from EU scientists he did not know. Those approaches have completely dried up. Scientists report that they are muddling through, with UKRI temporarily helping to fill gaps, but that is not sustainable long term. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, emphasised, we cannot be a science superpower without that international collaboration. The Royal Society argues that an international approach is vital and that,
“association to Horizon Europe, Euratom, and Copernicus are crucial,”
The Nurse review says that it is “essential” that we rejoin Horizon.
There are many advantages to a multi-country programme over a merely national one. Problems and solutions cross international boundaries—for example, climate change or the pandemic. Funding and access to research infrastructure is increased, with further opportunities to commercialise research. Skills and expertise can be pooled. Can the Minister update us on Horizon and not simply give us warm words, which is what we have been hearing so far?
Sustained UK support for science remains vital. The report is right to emphasise the need for an industrial strategy. Out of an analysis on the coalition of the strengths and weaknesses of the UK economy came the catapults and, for example, significant investment in the Crick Institute as the largest biomedical centre in Europe. This Government seem strangely proud of not having an industrial strategy, and that just seems bizarre.
When ODA was suddenly cut from 0.7% of GNI to 0.5%, and then focused on supporting refugees, no one in Government seemed aware of how much had gone to supporting research, and it was suddenly removed. Thus investment in the Jenner Institute on the Ebola vaccine helped to pave the way for the Covid vaccine. We did well in this sector due to earlier investment. ODA money, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, indeed helped to build our international reputation in science.
The Government now talk of,
“shaping the global science and technology landscape through strategic international engagement, diplomacy and partnerships”.
That is double-speak right now. The Royal Society states that, if the UK wants to be a world leader in this area, it also needs to be world-leading in its approach to researcher mobility. The Nurse review points to immigration policy hindering wider objectives for research. Now we hear that masters students should not bring dependants with them. What does that do for our universities, for families and particularly for women?
Therefore, my questions to the Minister in his new department, welcome as it is, are: will it start advocating effectively in Cabinet for those in science and higher education? Should immigration policy remain in the Home Office? What is taking the Government so long to sign up to Horizon, and how will they put right the damage that has already been done?
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register and join others in thanking our excellent chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, and the clerk and policy analyst who helped us produce this report.
Some of our witnesses told us that we are already a science superpower, while others said it was a meaningless slogan or possibly, as the noble Lord, Lord Winston, said, unhelpful boasting. My conclusion is that the slogan is largely hot air. Why do I say that? It is because the Government have not learned the lessons of history. The first person to try to quantify the UK’s position in the world of science was the late Lord May of Oxford when he was the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser. He quantified the performance of the UK relative to other countries in terms of major prizes such as the Nobel, Crafoord, and Balzan, and, in terms of bibliometrics, the numbers of papers published and citations. The UK was second only to the United States in scientific output and productivity. With 2% of the world’s scientists, we published 10% of the world’s papers and 13% of the most highly cited papers. If you look at input as well as output, the UK was well ahead of all other large countries in terms of bangs per buck.
Those are facts that Lord May of Oxford established —but the question is: why were we so successful? It cannot be that we are somehow inherently superior or innately better at science than anybody else. I shall mention three factors. The first is long-termism. In scientific research, major discoveries or breakthroughs usually follow many years of dedicated pursuit and many blind alleys. Nobel Prize winner, Max Perutz, referred to the long, lean years in his 22-year quest to determine the structure of haemoglobin, the molecule that carries oxygen to every cell in our bodies. Furthermore, the lag between discovery and application is generally measured in decades rather than years. Katalin Kariko, the Hungarian-American scientist whose research led to the development of RNA vaccines against Covid, such as Pfizer and Moderna, made her key discoveries in the late 1980s and early 1990s with no application on the horizon.
The second ingredient in the recipe for success is openness, which many other noble Lords have mentioned. Of the 72 Nobel Prizes in all fields awarded to UK scientists in the past 50 years, 20 were awarded to people born overseas who moved to the UK to do research. We have benefited hugely from welcoming overseas scientists.
The third ingredient in the recipe for success is freedom of inquiry. Were Watson and Crick on a mission to solve a practical problem? No. They were driven by an impulse to unlock the secrets of nature. As a result, they made one of the most profound discoveries of all time in the life sciences, which has transformed medicine. In fact, you could argue that, if you know how the results of your work are going to be applied, it cannot be very interesting or novel work in the first place.
In the Government’s quest to become or remain a scientific superpower, have they learned the lessons of history? Our evidence suggested not. Here is what we heard. First, in recent years the Government have published no fewer than eight different strategies for science with 25 priority areas: there is no long termism here. Secondly, the Government have slammed the door on many scientists from overseas by bureaucratic and financial hurdles and as a result of Brexit. Thirdly, the pipeline of young scientific talent is being strangled by a combination of precarity and bureaucratic overload in UKRI for early career researchers and further back in the pipeline by the persistent shortage of science teachers in state schools. Becoming a science superpower is not a sprint—it is a marathon, and the Government have tied their shoelaces together at the start of the race. I hope that the Minister will answer my questions about the lessons of history and say whether he agrees with them.
Lord Rees of Ludlow (CB)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, and the committee staff. I will venture a few words on schools, universities and R&D. Ideally, these crucial sectors should be governed by a bipartisan consensus that offers long-term stability. In depressing contrast, turbulence in government has triggered unstable policies, a rapid churn of Ministers and the proliferation of committees.
Attainment levels in our schools are poor compared to nations in the Far East and northern Europe. In particular, there are far too few good science teachers. There are three things that can be done: ensuring that conditions are good enough and pay levels are appropriate for practitioners of a serious profession; encouraging mature individuals to move into teaching from a career in research, industry or the Armed Forces; and making better use of the web and distance learning.
Our international rankings are higher in higher education, but there are some worrying trends. Academia is becoming less alluring. Some people will become academics, whatever happens—the nerdish element, of which I am one—but a world-class university system cannot survive just on them. It must attract a share of young people who are savvy about their options and ambitious to achieve something distinctive by their 30s. They increasingly associate academia with years of precarity and undue financial sacrifices.
A further off-putting trend is the deployment of ever more detailed performance indicators to quantify outputs, and the labour involved in preparing grant applications with a diminishing chance of success. This pressure gives two perverse incentives to young academics: to shun high-risk research and to downplay their teaching. Indeed, the declared rationale for setting up ARIA is to foster “long-term”, “blue-skies” research and freedom from bureaucracy in a fashion not available elsewhere in the system. It should surely be a higher priority to render less vexatious the bureaucracy of UKRI, whose budget is 50 times higher than ARIA’s.
In the UK, research is still strongly concentrated in universities—not so in France and Germany—but the encroachment of audit culture and other pressures are rendering universities less propitious environments for research projects that demand intense and sustained effort. Dedicated, stand-alone labs may become preferable —although there is a downside, as they reduce contact between talented researchers and students. Indeed, the UK owes its strength in biomedical science to its famous labs, which allow full-time, long-term research, with government funding massively supplemented by the Wellcome Trust, the cancer charities and a strong pharmaceutical industry. To ensure effective exploitation of new discoveries, these institutes must be complemented by organisations that can offer adequate development and manufacturing capability. This fortunate concatenation certainly proved its worth in the recent pandemic. We likewise need this in energy, AI and other crucial technologies.
One should welcome Paul Nurse’s recent report, whatever one’s views of his earlier report that created UKRI—and the web of new committees that it embedded into. However, our ability to attract and retain mobile academic talent, and our ranking as a destination of choice by those people, is now at risk. I will not reiterate the overwhelming case for rejoining the ERC, but there is now an international market for the best students as well: they are academic assets and a long-term investment in international relations. To retain its competitiveness as a “destination of choice” for mobile experts, despite the setback of Brexit, the nation must remove impediments and raise its game. Ways of doing this are a key theme of our committee’s report.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I join everyone in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, and her committee; I look forward to its future work and future reports—which I hope will be debated more promptly.
This report from August 2022 reveals gaping holes where government action should have been. I thank Imperial College London for its useful briefing, which identified how some of those gaping holes have been plugged, at least with stopgap measures. However, as many other noble Lords have already noted, the remaining enormous holes in the house of scientific and technological endeavour, out of which human and financial resources are fast flowing, are the lack of UK association with the Horizon Europe programme; the disastrous hostile environment immigration policies; and the collapse in the genuine official development assistance support. The Royal Academy of Engineering also provided useful reflections, stressing principles including a willingness to act for the long term; moving with agility and at pace; trusted and capable leadership; and action that accelerates progress. Those are not, I am afraid, anything with which this Government are associated.
However, rather than taking pot shots—as tempting and easy as that is—I will seek to bring a unique Green perspective to this debate, and make three challenges to the very foundations of the Government’s approach and, in some respects—and with respect—to that of your Lordships’ committee. The first is the assumption, underlying much of the Government’s rhetoric, that the aim of the science and technology framework—with its talk of bringing technologies to market and of private sector involvement and profit—is to make things, or to create services or intellectual property, to sell.
Certainly, when one looks at the UKRI five-year strategy from March 2022, I am not going to argue with the aim of driving the development, adoption and diffusion of green technologies, but also in that list is developing preventive measures to improve the nation’s health and well-being. The new Secretary of State talks of helping British people to live longer, smarter, healthier and happier lives, but what if achieving that means not making things or creating services to sell, not improving profits but finding ways in which to heal lives and environments without making a profit, thus cutting demand for expensive drugs or invasive treatments, ending the need for farmers to use pesticides or herbicides, or co-creating essential knowledge, working with researchers and communities in the global South and sharing that knowledge for free? Identifying the bad things that we do now and stopping them is also science, even if that means cutting profits and reducing GDP. We need to think hard about how we find funding for research and development for such measures, and that has to be a government priority.
Secondly, I disagree with the five critical technologies identified in the science and technology framework. Crucially, there are two things that are not there: ecology and social innovation. I disagree particularly with one that is there:
“Engineering biology–the application of rigorous engineering principles to the design of biological systems”.
That is such a 20th-century reductionist and outdated view, the kind that we saw on full display in the creation of the so called Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act. Are they really the same Government who occasionally, at odd moments, will claim to believe in the principles of agroecology and to understand that the survival of human systems on this planet to maintain a liveable climate and natural systems means working with the incredibly complex and still little understood natural systems of animals, plants, fungi, bacteria, viruses and archaea that together have created life on this planet?
Finally, although noble Lords may think that I have been radical enough, I am going to finish with an even more radical thought. The UKRI again speaks of securing UK strategic advantage in game-changing technologies, but rather than thinking about beating others in a world facing the climate emergency and nature crisis, with epidemics of poverty and ill health, rampant pandemic threats and a planet poisoned with plastics, pesticides and pharmaceuticals, we have to co-operate with others to make the best possible collective use of human ingenuity, skills, talent and time to survive and thrive through this next dangerous century.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
I express my appreciation to the staff and the leadership of the committee.
British science is in a parlous state. We are in the process of crippling our academic institutions, which have traditionally fostered our scientific discoveries. We are also losing the technological industries that have stimulated our inventiveness. Many are quietly disappearing, if they are not falling into the hands of foreign owners, which is often a prelude to their eventual demise.
During the committee’s inquiry, a plethora of reviews were under way concerning the governance of science and technology in the UK. These included the second review by Paul Nurse of the R&D organisational landscape, the Tickell review into research bureaucracy and the Gluckman review into the research excellence framework, which audits the research activities of universities.
The second Nurse review, which was delivered after the publication of the report of the committee, contains some interesting revelations. The first of these, as other noble Lords have mentioned, is that there has been a systematic underestimation of the percentage of GDP that the UK devotes to research and development. For many years, it was thought to be a mere 1.7%; it now appears that it is close to the OECD average of 2.5%. The second revelation is that the amount of R&D directly sponsored by the UK Government is well below the OECD average and far behind that of most research-intensive nations.
In putting this finding into perspective, it helps to take a long historical view. The country that emerged from the Second World War was endowed with a wealth of government research establishments and with many scientific and technological projects that were supported by the Government. The aviation industry was in receipt of large subventions. It was generating numerous prototypes of advanced military and civil aircraft. To restrain these expenditures became an obsession of the Civil Service. It developed a methodology of project cancellation that became more effective with the passage of time.
The restraint of government expenditure on research and development extended far beyond the aviation industry. It greatly affected Britain’s nuclear power industry, which was brought to a virtual halt. The restraint also affected many of the research establishments that had been supporting industry in both the public and the private sectors. Britain’s computer and telecommunications industries collapsed through a lack of support. This litany can be continued with many other examples. The advent of the Conservative Administration of Margaret Thatcher saw the culmination of this process of governmental disengagement, and there has been no significant re-engagement subsequently.
A truth that the report does not acknowledge sufficiently is that a nation cannot aspire to become a scientific superpower if it lacks a basis of scientific and technological industries that are ready to call upon the skills of the research workers. Britain has a severely attenuated industrial base. The decline of British industry has been a gradual and an inexorable process, to which several factors have contributed. The foremost of these has been the failure of our export industries, for which the persistent overvaluation of our currency has been largely responsible. The resulting balance of payments problems have been addressed by the Government’s encouragement of so-called inward financial investment, which has amounted to the sale of our infrastructure and industries to foreign owners. Among the companies that have been most attractive to foreign investors are those within our high-tech industries.
In the absence of a commercial and an industrial stimulus, British research and innovation is liable to retreat into British universities, which are also in peril. It is a familiar nostrum that, although British universities have been excellent at pure research, they have been less successful at applying it in practical contexts. The blame has tended to fall upon the academics and hardly at all upon industries that might have been their clients. The nostrums of the knowledge exchange framework and the demands for practicality that have arisen within the research excellence framework are a testimony to this tendency.
Universities are now in severe financial straits. Their staff, who have suffered severe erosions of their incomes and growing insecurity of their employment, are frequently on strike. The prospects for British science are poor, at a time when, in consequence of Brexit, many foreign academics have left the country and when senior academics are inclined to discourage their research students from thinking of joining the profession.
Lord Mair (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests in the register and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, and her committee on producing this important and comprehensive report. It rightly emphasises the need for government to have a clear and consistent science and technology policy, with a laser focus on implementation to prevent “science and tech superpower” simply being an empty slogan.
I will make just two points. The first relates to the vital role of industry engagement, and the second concerns the crucial importance of association with Horizon Europe. On the role of industry, the Government’s R&D spend of 2.4% of GDP requires significant private sector investment, which is expected to be around twice the public sector spending. The apparent increase to 2.4% is, of course, welcome, but it represents a significant increase in industry funding. As the Select Committee report notes,
“industry does not yet feel engaged with the strategy process”
of the Government.
A vital ingredient of the pathway to the UK becoming a science and tech superpower will be effective translation of research for application and exploitation by industry. The recent Nurse review, published in March, addressed the importance of translational research organisations, rightly emphasising the need to bridge
“the gap between discovery research and the translation of that research into real-world uses”.
The review highlights the important role of catapults in achieving this. They are independent, not-for-profit technology and innovation centres first established by the Government in 2011. They are intended to foster collaboration between research organisations in the public and private sectors, and their main purpose is to assist industry with turning innovative research ideas into commercial products via connections and networks. The Royal Academy of Engineering emphasises the importance of connections and networks, as exemplified by catapults, in its recent position paper, Strategic Advantage through Science and Technology: the Engineering View, which was published in April.
This House’s Science and Technology Select Committee considered catapults in detail in its report, Catapults: Bridging the Gap Between Research and Industry, published in February 2021. I was privileged to have been a member of that committee under the excellent chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Patel. We made a number of recommendations regarding catapults, and our report was debated in the House last year.
In particular, we highlighted the crucial question of the future role and long-term continuity of the catapults. We recommended that the Government prioritise scaling up the Catapult Network, promoting it as the UK’s national innovation asset. In the light of the ambition for the UK to become a science and technology superpower, can the Minister provide an update on the Government’s strategy regarding catapults and their role in promoting substantially greater industry R&D investment?
My second and final point relates to Horizon Europe. The noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, referred to this critical post-Brexit issue in her excellent introductory speech, as did other noble Lords speaking in this debate. The Select Committee rightly highlights the damage already caused to the UK’s reputation and scientific capability by the ongoing lack of association with Horizon Europe. UK universities have built high-impact science, technology and innovation networks over many decades of collaboration within EU framework programmes. These are now in jeopardy.
The UK must be seen by all international research communities as a reliable partner, and the Government must recognise that their plan B in the event of non-association with Horizon Europe is in danger of being a poor second best. The Nurse review concludes that it is essential that the UK associate with Horizon Europe. If it does not do so, the UK is in real danger of losing its prestigious position in the global R&D hierarchy, becoming less attractive as a research partner and for foreign investment and less likely to become a science and technology superpower.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register, in particular as chair of the council of Queen Mary University of London. This has been a wide-ranging debate, demonstrating that the committee’s report, despite being nearly a year old, still has great currency and relevance and its conclusions are as valid as they were a year ago. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, for her clear, comprehensive and challenging introduction to the report.
Many noble Lords mentioned the Government’s science superpower ambition. The “hot air” comment from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, was pretty fair. Sir James Dyson was even ruder, describing the Government’s science superpower ambition as a political slogan. There is probably a common view that it should be dropped, but it being clearly overblown as a slogan should not detract from the fact that there are opportunities in so many different fields, as many noble Lords have said.
I very much liked the way in which the noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Krebs, both talked about the secret—the essence—of success in terms of collaboration and cocreation. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, mentioned long-termism, openness, freedom of inquiry and the fact that those lessons had not been learned. As the committee noted and a number of noble Lords have said, we have had a proliferation of strategies in various areas, but with what follow up and plans for delivery? We have had a whole series of reviews, some of which were mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, but where is the result? What will the KPIs be? What is the shelf life of these reviews and where is the practical implementation?
I will take just one example: the Life Sciences Vision, which was launched back in 2021. Dame Kate Bingham is quoted as believing that the vaccine scheme legacy has been “squandered” despite that vision. Business investment is crucial and nowhere more than in the life sciences sector. A couple of weeks ago, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, highlighted the issues relating to business investment in the life sciences sector in his regret Motion on the Branded Health Service Medicines (Costs) (Amendment) Regulations 2023. All the levers to create incentives for the development of new medicines are under government control but, as his Motion noted, the UK’s share of global pharmaceutical R&D fell by more than one-third between 2012 and 2020.
The noble Lord rightly argued that the voluntary and statutory pricing schemes for new medicines are becoming a major impediment to future investment in the UK. We seem to be treating the pharma industry as some kind of golden goose so, despite the Government’s Life Sciences Vision, we see Eli Lilly pulling investment on laboratory space in London because the UK
“does not invite inward investment at this time”
and AstraZeneca has decided to build its next plant in Ireland because of the UK’s discouraging tax rate. The excellent O’Shaughnessy report on clinical trials is all very well, but if there is no commercial incentive to develop and launch new medicines here, why should pharma companies want to engage in clinical trials here? The Chancellor’s growth package for the life sciences, announced on 25 May, fails to tackle this crucial aspect, and I could repeat that for other sectors.
On these Benches, we welcome the creation of the new department and the launch of the Science and Technology Framework to inform the work of the department to 2030, but what are the key priority outcomes? What concrete plans for delivery lie behind it? Does it explicitly supersede all the visions and strategies that have gone before? The crux of this committee’s report seems to me to accord with that. It states:
“The Government should set out specifically what it wants to achieve in each of the broad areas of science and technology that it has identified. There should be a clear implementation plan.”
It also stated that,
“the Government should consolidate existing sector-specific strategies”
into that implementation plan.
We have heard from a number of Lords about vital cross-departmental working and joining up government on science and technology, but we do not yet really know the role of the National Science and Technology Council and what its key priorities are and, indeed, what the priorities of the Office for Science and Technology Strategy are.
This applies particularly with regard to the Home Office’s policy on visas. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, my noble friends Lady Walmsley and Lady Northover, and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, about the fact that the policy on visas and migration is directly at odds with an effective science policy. If we are going to be world-leading in our approach to research and mobility, we need to correct that in many different ways.
There are important systemic issues that should be a top priority for resolution by the new department. We have had the independent review by Sir Paul Nurse, which has been mentioned. I suspect he has calculated our spending in a rather different way from the way that the department has, but he concluded that funding, particularly provided by government, was limited and below that of other competitive nations such as Germany, South Korea and US. My noble friend Lady Walmsley asked whether we track how other nations are spending.
There is the question of Horizon, which we have disproportionately benefited from in the past, yet we have a complete lack of clarity in this area, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Brown and Lady Bennett, the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, the noble Lord, Lord Mair, and my noble friend Lady Walmsley said. We need a clear commitment to re-entering Horizon. What is the position nearly two months after the Prime Minister’s letter to Sir Adrian Smith on 14 April assuring him about our intentions on Horizon? Many other nations that are not members of the European Union belong to Horizon.
The way the UK delivers and supports research is not optimal. We have heard from a number of noble Lords about the way that the bureaucracy of UKRI operates. The Tickell review found that there are issues with bureaucracy around research and development funding. As the noble Lord, Lord Rees, says, it is extraordinary that ARIA was specifically designed to avoid bureaucracy. Its budget is tiny in comparison to UKRI, yet we have not reformed the processes of UKRI to make them less bureaucratic.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, talked about the role of university research, and others talked about the research excellence framework. We seem to have a rather perverse approach to this. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, we should encourage strategic partnerships, which should be very much part of the warp and weft of what we are trying to achieve. At the moment, our research in universities is cross-subsidised by overseas students, which is an extraordinary state of affairs. We really need to look at that in some detail.
With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, commercialisation is a crucial aspect linking R&D to economic growth. This, in turn, means the need for a consistent industrial strategy—as the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, and my noble friend Lady Northover said—with the right commercial incentives and an understanding of the value of intangible assets, such as IP and data. The noble Lord, Lord Mair, talked about catapults—I am a huge fan of them—and he was entirely right to raise the resources and the strategy that is being pursued. An update from the Minister on that would be extremely welcome.
There are many other aspects to do with the scale-up finance issues, which Sir Patrick Vallance mentioned in his evidence to the Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Committee last month. We have seen the whole question of listing problems in London, as well as the delay in the pension fund issue and helping to de-risk their investment in new technology—I have seen the new initiative from the British Business Bank, which is long overdue. Then we have the whole question of regulatory divergence. I disagree with those who, like the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seem to think that, if we stand out in terms of regulation, everything will be fine. Regulatory divergence is one of the real problems; it creates uncertainty. We need to align ourselves in so many ways. I could have given a whole speech on AI regulation, but I have desisted. However, needless to say, I am highly critical of the Government’s White Paper in this respect.
Finally, the whole area of diversity in STEM is absolutely crucial. In the wise words of the British Science Association, we must ensure that the opportunities and benefits are equitable in any future science strategy. There is not enough time to go into that, but I believe that that could be a real key to unlocking so much of our success. I do not have time to mention pure maths, but we also need to look at that.
There is much to do for the new department. I wish the Minister and his colleagues well, and I am sure that they will rise to the challenge. But we need to create the kind of consensus that the noble Lord, Lord Rees, advocated. That is another secret to success.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, like everyone else, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, on the excellence of her committee’s report and the contribution made to putting that together by our clerks, the evidence given by witnesses and the sheer quantum and excellence of the contributions made—it is a really profound look at the Government’s science and technology programme and approach.
I am suffering a bit from imposter syndrome. Everyone else who spoke can speak wisely from their experience in the field of science, but I cannot. It is now some 50 years since I left school without a single science qualification—I was one of only two art students in my old secondary modern. Most of my colleagues who survived until the sixth form all went off to do maths and science subjects—and did them very well. But that does stop any of us having a view on government policy. This report should bring the Minister up sharp in terms of the Government’s response. The report was published nearly a year ago, as many have said, but time has not treated it badly; in fact, quite the reverse—it still seems very fresh and current to me on reading it.
As the committee noted, and as the Government acknowledge, science and technology are key to the UK’s future. If we get policy right, it will have untold benefits for our economy and our people right across the country. Research and development are essential to the development of a robust and thriving economy, and we certainly need a more effective strategy than we currently have for developing manufacturing and industry.
However, as we so often hear when we debate the output of your Lordships’ excellent committees, there are worries about a significant gap between the Government’s stated ambitions and their output. The report argues that, although individual sectoral strategies may successfully identify key challenges or contain eye-catching headlines and targets, there is, worryingly,
“little sense of how they fit into an overall plan”.
That is not the first time that this accusation has been levelled at this Administration, and, with all his talk of delivering on the priorities of the British people, it is disappointing that the Prime Minister and his ministerial team seem to struggle so much with timely, effective implementation—their great Achilles heel. With a seemingly never-ending flow of Prime Ministers, Chancellors and junior Ministers in recent years—there have been nine Science Ministers in five years, which is something of a record—the science and technology sectors have seen multiple relaunches and rebranding exercises, which hardly helps people to buy into a single core strategy.
As noble Lords have said, the Government published a Science and Technology Framework in March, outlining their goals and vision for science and technology for 2030. This follows the innovation strategy, an R&D road map, a science plan, an Office for Science and Technology Strategy, The Grand Challenges, half-baked industrial strategies, various sector deals, the establishment of the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, the first National Science and Technology Council, a new science and technology council and two reorganisations of UKRI. The organogram on page 21 of the report shows just how complex the Government’s decision-making and arrangements for R&D and science have become. There may well be merit in many of these steps—indeed, we have supported certain initiatives—but the sheer volume of announcements, rebrands and reorganisations points, in my view and that of many others, to a Government concerned with media headlines rather than day-to-day delivery.
If we look at the Government’s record, exactly what do we see? The number of women starting STEM apprenticeships was down in the most recent year-on-year data, which fed through to unfilled maths and physics vacancies in schools, as noble Lords referenced—these are exactly the subjects that the PM says he cares about. The UK is an international outlier in terms of investment: many UK-based tech and life sciences start-ups and scale-ups are struggling to get access to funds, leading some to relocate overseas. The geographical spread of investment is uneven, meaning a lack of support for businesses and jobs in places like the north-east, and far too much of the R&D budget is lost to error and fraud. The Government’s AI strategy is, seemingly, already out of date. While the Prime Minister seems to have woken up to the threats of AI in recent weeks, it is not clear that he has the appetite or clout to facilitate an international response. The lack of a clear cross-cutting industrial strategy means that the UK is losing the race on new green technologies and lagging behind on reskilling, and the Government’s ideological opposition to trade unions means a failure to embed new technologies with the support of our workforce.
We wholeheartedly support the ambition of making the UK a science and technology superpower, but there seems to be no clear strategy to secure that status. Many of the essential ingredients are in place: we are home to brilliant businesses and entrepreneurs, and we have a fantastic workforce and a track record of innovation—the Covid vaccine is one of the glowing examples.
We hope that the recent machinery of government changes—the Government are to be congratulated for having a Science Minister at Secretary of State level—will result in a new strategic focus. Ministers need to know and understand that we are not a million miles away from 2030 and, if the Government continue on their current course, there is little to suggest that we will break free from their decade of low growth.
I join others in wanting some answers to the questions about the Horizon Europe programme, which all noble Lords who have spoken this evening have referenced. We really need this to be resolved. It is a big mistake in the making, and if we do not grasp the opportunity to work with our partners and collaborate across boundaries and borders, we will miss the biggest trick in the R&D world.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and others, who pointed to the clunky nature of the visa system. It is stopping and inhibiting scientists from across the world coming to our country. In the past, we have benefited greatly from that. It is a drag factor in terms of current policy.
On the Horizon programme, is there a plan B? Will one be published? Does it exist? Is it something we can rely on? There are many questions for the Minister to answer. It has been a fascinating debate, and I am sure that all noble Lords are looking forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Viscount Camrose) (Con)
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Baroness for securing this important debate and indeed to the whole committee. On a personal level, as a still relatively new Minister, it is incredibly helpful to have set out in the report a not always positive but clear-eyed critique of where we are going in science policy. I am grateful for that and for the excellent contributions made by all noble Lords in today’s debate.
As a number of noble Lords mentioned, in February, the Prime Minister announced the creation of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology—DSIT. It will promote a diverse research and innovation system, connecting discovery science to new companies, growth and jobs. I believe and hope that the creation of DSIT has addressed many of the challenges raised by the Select Committee in its report. It will provide strategic coherence in policy and strategy for science and tech. I recognise that there are different views on this, but it has been warmly welcomed by a large number of external stakeholders for putting science and tech at the heart of the Government’s agenda. Of course, all government departments undertake R&D to support their own policy objectives, but DSIT plays a unique role as steward of the UK R&D system across Whitehall and nationally, supporting world-class R&D and the underpinning investment through our universities and labs to enable a thriving R&D system.
On 6 March, the Prime Minister and the DSIT Secretary of State launched the science and technology framework—the Government’s plan to cement the UK’s place as a science and tech superpower by 2030. The framework is there to challenge every part of government to put the UK at the forefront of global science and technology. Action will focus on creating the right environment to develop critical technologies; investing in R&D, talent and skills; financing innovative science and tech companies; creating international opportunities; providing access to physical and digital infrastructure; and improving regulation and standards. We have already taken significant steps. Since the launch of the S&T framework we have announced £2.5 billion over the next decade for quantum tech; launched a £250 million tech missions fund for AI, quantum and engineering biology; launched the AI regulation White Paper; and announced a £1 billion strategy for the UK’s semiconductor sector.
In addition, we have been progressing work to define clear strategies for individual sectors, such as the AI action plan, the life sciences strategy and the national space strategy. These actions will help to ensure that the UK has the skills, talent and infrastructure to take a global lead in game-changing technologies and ground-breaking science.
While DSIT is taking the lead on the S&T framework, this is necessarily a cross-government effort. For example, use of government procurement to stimulate innovation is led from the Cabinet Office but needs to harness the big budgets, such as defence, to really have impact. By the end of 2023, we will publish an update setting out the progress that we have made and the further action that must be taken on our path to being a science and tech superpower by 2030.
As set out in the 2023 Spring Budget, the Government will turn their vision for UK enterprise into a reality by supporting growth in the sectors of the future. This includes the five critical technologies alongside life sciences and green technologies. Underpinning the Government’s long-term strategy and support for the sectors of the future is a commitment to increasing publicly funded and economy-wide R&D spending. The Government have recommitted to increasing public expenditure on R&D to £20 billion per annum by 2024-25. I take the points that were raised about needing to compete in a high-spending international environment. This represents a cash increase of around one-third and is the largest ever increase in public R&D spending over a spending review period.
I turn to the matter that I think almost everybody raised of international collaboration. We need to think globally if we are to make the most effective progress and tackle global challenges. We want to be the partner of choice for other leading science nations and to tap into the rising potential of emerging economies, ensuring that we are seen as a natural partner. For example, the UK in April signed a landmark memorandum of understanding on research and innovation with India, enabling quicker, deeper collaboration that will drive economic growth, create skilled jobs and improve lives in the UK, India and worldwide.
Attracting high-skilled international talent will bring long-term benefits to the whole of the UK. Science and Technology Framework presents a talent and skills vision for 2030 in which the UK has a large and varied base of skilled technical and entrepreneurial talent, able to respond quickly to the needs of industry, academia and government. This includes our immigration offer for talented researchers and innovators to come to the UK, including via the high potential route for recent graduates of top global universities and the scale-up route for individuals recruited by a UK-based high-growth scale-up company.
I turn to Horizon, which I know is a subject of great importance not just here but around the research community and the country. The Government are fully committed to science and research collaboration, including with our European counterparts. That is why we continue to be in discussions, which, contrary to the point raised, are in good faith, with our European counterparts on the UK’s involvement in Horizon Europe and hope that our negotiations will be successful. That is our strong preference, but we are clear that our participation must be fair for the UK’s researchers, businesses and taxpayers. We have set out our bold, ambitious alternative to Horizon Europe—Pioneer—if we are not able to secure association on fair and appropriate terms. Negotiations are ongoing, so I cannot comment on their content except to say that our priority remains to ensure that the UK’s R&D sector gets the maximum level of support to allow it to continue its ground-breaking research and collaboration with international partners.
I will now turn to some of the specific points raised. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, whose remarks I thank her for, I shall focus my comments on her three key questions. First, on Horizon, as I have noted, we are moving forward with the discussions and our involvement in EU science and research programmes. As several noble Lords have noted, delays over two years have caused serious and lasting damage to UK R&D. As I say, we hope sincerely that negotiations will be successful, but the guiding principle remains that participation has to be fair for UK researchers, businesses and taxpayers.
To provide the industry with certainty, we recognise that we must come to a resolution as quickly as possible. To be as clear as I can be, we want to associate with Horizon Europe, but it has to be on fair terms, and if we cannot reach fair and appropriate terms, we will launch Pioneer. Meanwhile we have established the Horizon guarantee to ensure that there is no loss in funding for the UK sector. This will be in place to cover all Horizon Europe calls that close on or before the end of June 2023. We are keeping the scope of the guarantee under review and will ensure that there is no gap in funding flowing to the sector.
Following the recent machinery of government changes, OSTS has now been integrated into the newly created Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. The National Science and Technology Council will remain a Cabinet committee following the recent changes, with the Prime Minister as chair.
On skills, which were also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, the Government welcome the committee’s inquiry on people and skills in STEM and have responded to the recommendations. The Government remain committed to taking forward the R&D people and culture strategy. The Science and Technology Framework prioritises action on talent and skills which looks at the wider system, supporting STEM skills across the economy.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, my noble friend Lord Wei and the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, in relation to NSTC, there is a long-standing convention that the frequency, attendance list and minutes of Cabinet and its committees are not made public to protect the principle of collective agreement by Ministers.
On the science and tech framework, by the end of 2023, we will publish an update setting out the progress that we have made and the further action that must be taken on our path to being a science and technology superpower by 2030.
My noble friend Lord Holmes asked how the specific strategies fit into an overall coherent approach. The Government have set out their priorities through a suite of strategies, including the R&D road map, the UK innovation strategy and the people and culture strategy, which take a strategic or thematic overview to drive delivery of the Government’s priorities. We agree that policy coherence is essential for the success of the UK’s R&D mission.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Winston, for his comments and agree with the points he raised about the importance of support for researchers. UKRI is working to improve the experience of applying for funding through its Simpler and Better Funding programme.
In response to the question about ensuring good monitoring and evaluation data on the R&D that UKRI funds, information about research outputs is tracked by UKRI and other funders as a requirement. Monitoring and evaluation of the impact of funding is undertaken to understand that impact.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked how we track what other nations are doing. The FCDO’s science and innovation network based in embassies across the world provides valuable intelligence on the science and tech strategies of other nations which informs the UK’s approach and supports international dialogue. The noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Northover, asked whether scientific visa applications are subsidising other functions in the Home Office. I accept that the global race for science, research, technology and innovation is increasingly competitive, and the Government aim to make the UK the best place in the world for scientists, innovators and entrepreneurs to live and work. The Government are committed to ensuring that the UK’s immigration system supports growth and is clear and supportive for scientists, academics and entrepreneurs—
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but I wonder if he would write to me with the answer to my question.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I am happy to write to the noble Baroness.
In response to how the Government are taking a lead on regulation without the downside of regulatory divergence, the Government recognise that technological innovation is fundamental to unlocking growth and are committed to growing the UK’s global reputation for regulatory best practice.
In response to the question from the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Rees, on how we will get more specialist teachers, specifically in mathematics, I support the Prime Minister’s aim to ensure that every young person has the skills that they need to succeed in life. Higher maths attainment will also help to grow the economy, creating better paid jobs and opportunity for all, which is why I also support his ambition to ensure that every young person studies some form of maths up to the age of 18.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, I thank him for his helpful comments on the importance of developing a global science partnership. I very much agree that collaboration is at the heart of being a science superpower. Last year we announced the first phase of the new International Science Partnerships Fund, underpinned by funding of £119 million over this spending review period.
My noble friend Lord Wei asked about building on the success of the Vaccine Taskforce. There will be ongoing lessons to learn from the Covid pandemic. We are demonstrating our ambition and delivering outcomes for patients through our healthcare missions. We have announced the chairs and details of the mental health and addiction missions as well as the cancer mission chair. These missions seek to replicate the success of the Vaccine Taskforce in areas where we face the greatest healthcare challenges, and illustrate the impact of industry-government collaboration.
In response to the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, who asked about ARIA’s progress, it has been established and is still in its early stage of development. Over the coming months, ARIA is recruiting its first cohort of programme directors, who will help to shape and inform the agency’s first set of research programmes. None the less, funding transformative research with long-term benefits will require patience, as prepared for in the agency’s design.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, I strongly agree with him on the vital importance of long-term thinking and learning the lessons from history. This is why the S&T framework necessarily takes a long-term view of the strategic outcomes that we seek to deliver in the decades to come.
The noble Lord, Lord Rees, brought up the risks of precarity for research careers. Postgraduate researchers are key to the success of research groups, and we are looking at how to support them through a new deal for PGRs. UKRI has undertaken a sector consultation as a first phase of this long-term programme of work, and the results will be published soon, in 2023.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised the grant review of UKRI. DSIT is working closely with UKRI to implement the recommendations of the review while overseeing UKRI’s transformation programme to support improved governance and decision-making. The noble Baroness mentioned the recent changes to the ONS numbers on total R&D investment in the UK, as did the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. It is good news that the ONS has improved its methodology for estimating R&D spend in the UK and that, as a result, we have moved above countries such as France in terms of R&D spend as a proportion of GDP. The Government are taking great strides in growing public R&D spend in the UK, with the Chancellor recommitting in the most recent Budget to growing public spend to £20 billion per annum by 2024-25.
A number of noble Lords have raised the recommendations of the recent Nurse review. The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology outlined in her letter to the lead reviewer, Paul Nurse, that the landscape review would play a foundational role in delivering the UK Government’s vision and would set out a detailed response to the review’s recommendations in the coming months.
The noble Lord, Lord Mair, discussed industry engagement. The innovation strategy set out our plan for driving investment in UK R&D. We have increased funding for core Innovate UK programmes which are successful in crowding in private sector leverage, so that they reach £1.1 billion per year by 2024-25. This is over £300 million, or 66% more per year than in 2021-22, and will ensure that it can support business in bringing innovations to market.
In closing, I thank noble Lords for such a detailed, well-informed and wide-ranging debate. The newly created department will continue to address the challenges offered by the Select Committee and make clear progress to achieve our science and technology superpower ambitions, with a clear focus on delivery.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, may I say that I fully appreciate that the Minister is not personally involved in the negotiations over Horizon Europe? But in his remarks, he has referred to serious and lasting damage by non-association. Can he at least take back to the department the near-universal view in this debate that we should join and consider the fact that the Government specifically said after Brexit that this is the one thing that we want to join? Let us think of the consequences of our future co-operation with our European neighbour on a whole range of things if it turns out that we do not join what we said we wanted to.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I am happy to take not just the noble Lord’s remarks but the sense of the Committee on that back to the department.
Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)
My Lords, I thank all speakers in what has been a very interesting debate. I welcome and thank the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, the relatively new Minister from a relatively new department, and agree that we celebrate the creation of DSIT. It does indeed address a number of the issues in our report—indeed, we rather hope that our report may have been a useful little prod to encourage the creation of the department. It was very good to hear the Minister say that we needed to challenge every part of government, and also good to hear that attracting overseas talent is so close to DSIT’s heart.
I hope that we are all impressed that the importance of this topic to Members of the House is indicated by how many people have been prepared to exchange a comfortable dinner and a chance to watch “Springwatch” for a four-minute speaking slot in the Moses Room. I hope that noble Lords get a comfortable dinner very shortly, after I have sat down.
The message that I hope the Minister will take back is that we are hearing of some good progress, but we must go further and faster—and we must go further and faster in terms of associating with Horizon. It was good to hear him recognise the damage that our lack of association has caused; the only fair and economically rationale conclusion—fair for UK researchers, fair for businesses and fair for taxpayers—is that we reassociate as quickly as possible.
We must go further and faster, too, in welcoming overseas talent. I hope that the meetings of the NSTC will be a forum in which Ministers from the new department and the Department for Education can bring home to their colleagues from the Home Office the importance of welcoming scientists and technologists from overseas. We heard from the Department for Education that they are looking at bringing in overseas teachers to cover our lack of teachers in areas such as physics and maths. They need to be supported by a Home Office that makes that an easy and welcoming process—which, we heard, is so clearly not the situation at the moment. I hope that the NSTC will be a forum where these issues can be debated, as the Minister has reminded us, in private. Perhaps some heads will be knocked together; we will be listening for the knocking.
We need to go further and faster in setting our targets for our spend on and investment in R&D. It is not good enough to chase the average level in the OECD: if we want to be a science superpower, we need to be at leading levels. We are seeing huge investments being made in the US, Europe and China, and we really need to up our game. We need to be doing more on stability and the long-term view.
As noble Lords have mentioned, we also need to go further and faster in thinking about how we improve diversity in STEM and see how that can help us with our STEM workforce shortage in many areas. I have to gently admonish my noble friend Lord Krebs for mentioning the outstanding work of Watson and Crick but failing to mention the outstanding work of Rosalind Franklin.
To conclude, it is a good start. We are pleased to see DSIT, which will have a have a big challenge. It will have the support of many people in this House in driving that challenge forward, but we need to go further and faster.
House of Lords
SMEs: Net-zero Targets
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Blake of Leeds
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support small and medium-sized enterprises in working towards net-zero targets.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have launched a campaign aimed at increasing the energy efficiency of businesses, charities and public sector bodies. We continue to support UK businesses to meet their net-zero commitments via the UK business climate hub. SMEs are encouraged to join the UN’s Race to Zero initiative; more than 4,200 UK small businesses have done so. We are also developing a dedicated energy advice service for SMEs, which is due by the end of the year.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I am sure that we all value the important contribution that SMEs make to our economy. One of the issues consistently facing them is their ability to employ and retain skilled workers in a highly competitive jobs market. This is especially prevalent where skills are lacking, such as in retrofitting buildings and in new green technologies. The scale of the challenge of achieving net-zero targets presents SMEs working in these areas with a great opportunity. However, barriers such as shortages of skills and available finance are preventing them making the progress that they seek to achieve. What steps are the Government taking to promote green jobs, skills training and competitive supply chains, particularly by working with industry, the education sector and the finance sector to create pathways into these jobs?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness makes an important point. The encouragement of green jobs and helping workers to go from the old fossil fuel economy to new jobs is a challenge. We are spending several billion pounds a year working with the DfE and across the various green homes grants. We have a number of highly skilled green jobs funds, which industry accessed. There is no one simple answer but she is right; it is a job that we are working on.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, earlier today, I spoke to an owner-manager of an SME in the print industry in my part of the world. She said that her biggest issue in trying to become a B Corp SME is getting information from big suppliers on their scope 3 emissions, which is really important for SMEs that want to go down this path. Could the Minister take this issue and how it might be solved back to his department, or give me an idea of how that issue might be approached by the Government in future?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord makes an important point. We are aware of this issue. We are increasing the reporting requirements for bigger companies. We must be careful to make sure that we do not put too many undue burdens on business but I will certainly have a look at the issue for the noble Lord.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is no clear consensus as to what net zero entails for SMEs? With them accounting for 99% of all businesses in the United Kingdom, what are the Government doing to standardise pathways to net zero among these businesses?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Of course it will vary depending on the type of business. Many businesses are already working in green areas. A lot of them are involved in retrofitting. On the other hand, some of them are very energy intensive. There are different solutions for different businesses.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, given that their competitors in Germany and elsewhere are extending the deadline for ending the production of motor cars with internal combustion engines, are we not in danger of making our large car manufacturers into small and medium-sized enterprises as they are being forced to reduce production, with great consequences for employment and competitiveness?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I normally agree with my noble friend, but I do not on this solitary occasion: I think he is wrong. Other major economies, including the EU, are essentially doing a similar job—they have made a couple of small exceptions to the ban with things such as novel fuels. Providing certainty for industry and business is the direction they need to go in. Supporting them in the appropriate areas, ensuring that the right gigafactories are completed in the UK, is the way to go, in my view.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, one way to help small and medium-sized businesses is to remove barriers to trade. Given that the UK and the EU both have carbon pricing, would it be possible for the UK and the EU to agree to waive the requirements for exporters and importers to calculate and report on carbon emissions from products traded between the EU and the UK?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness makes an important point. We want to make trade as simple and easy as possible. I will certainly take the point back to the trade department.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. The Minister talked about the importance of providing certainty for business and small and medium-sized enterprises. One of the barriers to those enterprises investing in skills training is uncertainty about programmes such as retrofitting and energy efficiency, which have been marred by stop- go policies in the past. Will the Minister look again at the Government’s opposition to the energy efficiency proposals in the Energy Bill?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am afraid that I do not agree with the noble Baroness. We have an extensive energy efficiency programme. We are spending £6.6 billion over this Parliament. I agree that long-term consistency and certainty are important, which is why the Treasury has guaranteed an additional £6 billion from 2025 for precisely these measures.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, the Government have a very ambitious net-zero target and part of that is their ambitious target for the installation of heat pumps, which, frankly, at the moment they look like they are not going to meet. The Minister’s own department’s figures suggest that the great majority of heat pumps so far installed in this country are produced abroad. Is there not a way in pursuit of this ambitious target to ensure that a much greater number of heat pumps installed in this country are produced in this country by British manufacturers rather than sending the business abroad?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I agree very much with my noble friend, and we are working with a number of manufacturers looking to relocate production to the UK. I think his figures in terms of the percentage produced in the UK are slightly wrong. Mitsubishi in Scotland produces a large number of heat pumps and there are a number of ground source heat pump manufacturers as well. We want more relocated into the UK. We are looking at a market mechanism with the boiler manufacturers, and have a grant programme to relocate production facilities into the UK.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord St John, pointed out, 99% of businesses in this country are SMEs and many will not be able to reach carbon neutrality. What are the Government going to do to try to help them with carbon offsetting?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend makes a good point. Of course, carbon offsetting is a controversial area. We must ensure that any offsetting that takes place is genuine, viable and reduces real-world carbon production.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, because the net-zero metric does not include all the emissions associated with imported products, does the Minister agree that we must bear in mind our total carbon footprint on any activity in the UK which uses imports, so that we are not unnecessarily exporting our emissions? That would be of no help whatsoever in combating global warming.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I agree. Carbon leakage is an important problem, and one of the reasons why a number of the larger industries are subject to international competition, as the noble Lord mentioned. We give them free permit allocations under the emissions trading system.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, are the Government looking at the efficiency of heat pumps? Have they monitored them, and will they produce a report on their cost and effectiveness?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Indeed, we have already done so. There have been a number of reports on the efficiency of heat pumps. Efficiency varies depending on the quality of the installation. We must ensure that they are installed properly in the appropriate properties with the right number of emitters. I am happy to send copies of the reports that we have done to the noble Lord.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, a number of SMEs operate in old buildings. When retrofitting to improve insulation considerably, we rapidly come up against planning restrictions. Are the Government doing their best to reconcile the preservation of the built environment with the need for much more efficient insulation of old housing?
Lord Callanan (Con)
“Yes” is the short answer to the noble Lord’s question. I am on a working party with DLUHC looking at some of the planning barriers that exist. The conclusion is that there are not many legislative barriers; it is just the views taken by different planning officers in different local authorities. Like the noble Lord, we value local authority autonomy to decide these things for themselves, but there is perhaps more of a role for government guidance in these matters.
Water: Wales and England
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wigley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions, if any, they have had with Welsh Government Ministers concerning proposals to secure greater quantities of water for use in south-east England from sources in Wales and from rivers running from Wales to England.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
Under the intergovernmental protocol, Defra and the Welsh Government collaborate on water resources management. Water companies have a statutory duty to provide clean and reliable water to customers. They have been consulting on their new water resources management plans, including the water infrastructure needed to meet their water-supply duties. The plans will be referred to the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers for decisions on whether the plans can be finalised later this year.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, as this is the first Wales-specific opportunity in the House since the sad death of Lord Morris of Aberavon, I pay tribute on behalf of Plaid Cymru to his lifelong work for Wales. We extend our sympathy to his family.
We in Wales fully recognise the needs of south-east England for adequate supplies of drinking water, and that it may need additional capacity from Welsh reservoirs and agreed flows of waters down rivers emanating from Wales. However, will the Minister accept that it is not unreasonable for Wales to receive fair financial benefit for such water supplies and that development control over any such projects in Wales should be in the hands of Senedd Cymru and the relevant local authority?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I think that we all concur with the noble Lord on his condolences for Lord Morris.
There is a long-established protocol for transferring water from water-rich parts of the United Kingdom to areas where it is needed. Wales has been providing water to Liverpool and other cities in the north-west, and there are plans that water can now reach the Thames through a new arrangement. On charging, there are a number of existing transfers where water companies receive money from water companies in England for water that they have received from Wales, and that will continue. Additionally, there are investments in the Welsh catchments which protect water quality, support biodiversity and sequester carbon, and that finance does flow into those schemes.
Lord Robathan (Con)
As somebody of Welsh ancestry, who could have played rugby for Wales—although it is unlikely I would ever have caught the selector’s eye— I welcome how the water that falls on the beloved islands of the United Kingdom is used for the benefit of everybody in the United Kingdom. We thank the Welsh for storing water in Wales, but I understand that people on the Welsh side of the border use hospital services in Shropshire and elsewhere. Surely we should be grateful that we are a United Kingdom and that all members of the United Kingdom can use water and hospital services to their benefit.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I agree with my noble friend. There are a number of different actions in the Wales Act which will see more control over these issues in the Senedd when Section 48 is put into place—that is under negotiation now. On a small island such as this, there is a free-flowing use of services by businesses and individuals, and that will always continue.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, it is very sad that there is not more messaging around how precious and finite a commodity water is. When the British public were asked how much they use, they guessed between 20 and 40 litres a day; in actual fact, it is 145 litres a day. The Environment Act set a target of a 20% reduction within the next 10 years, but last year our use went up by 3.7%. What are the Government going to do in terms of public messaging to encourage people to use less of this precious stuff, whether we get it from Wales or from the water-stressed east?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Baroness raises a crucial point. Household consumption amounts, on average, to 60% of public water supply and has decreased 5.2% since last year from 152 to 144 litres per person per day. This remains above the forecast of 136, but our environment improvement plan gives very strict targets for further reduction. Some of that is about communication, but it is also about demand-led measures, which can cause the dramatic reductions that we want to promote.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, in 2020 the Government reported that 3 billion litres—a huge 20% of the UK’s total supply—are lost every day through leakage from the pipes. Last month, Ofwat expressed concerns that some water companies do not have plans to meet the minimum requirement of a 50% reduction over the period 2017-18 to 2050. Can the Minister explain what urgent action is being taken to make sure that the water companies address this really serious concern?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Through our direction to Ofwat, the Government have made this an absolute priority. The latest figures show that three-quarters of companies are meeting their leakage targets and some have reduced leakage by more than 10% in the past two years. We will continue to crack down on the amount of water lost through leaks with targets; we expect leakage to reduce by 16% by 2025.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, is obviously right when she says that water supplies are limited and finite. On the other hand, if the water companies stopped all their leaks and if we built more reservoirs when there is surplus water, we would not have a problem.
Lord Benyon (Con)
There are plans for more reservoirs. A reservoir in East Anglia has increased in size and, I hope, we will very soon see plans being brought forward by Thames Water for a major reservoir that will resolve many of these issues. The reservoirs in London were closed because a ring main was created, which is sometimes quoted erroneously in this case.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, water is an essential resource, but we have seen it being polluted on a grand scale through legal sewage overflows. This week, we have also seen that the water network of Ukraine is vulnerable to catastrophic attack, causing great personal distress and huge environmental damage. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has highlighted the need to move water around the country, from areas of plenty to those suffering scarcity. Is the Minister confident that, nationwide, we have sufficient water resources to meet the current population’s demands?
Lord Benyon (Con)
If you draw a rough line from the Bristol Channel to the Wash, all that is north and west of it has a surfeit of water, but there are areas that are south and east of it where rainfall is often below that of some countries in sub-Saharan Africa. That is why our environment improvement plan sets a clear reduction of demand, halving leakage rates, developing new supplies, moving water to where it is needed and reducing the need for drought measures that can harm the environment.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, we all appreciate the urgency of ensuring sustainable water supplies for the entire country. However, 60 years on from the flooding of Capel Celyn, the sensitivities of the reallocation of Welsh water resources to English cities needs to be understood. As not a single reservoir has been built since privatisation in 1989, will the Minister update the House on what recent meetings Ministers have held with Thames Water, the National Infrastructure Commission and the relevant local authorities to discuss the proposed Abingdon reservoir and associated schemes?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The Abingdon reservoir was brought to Ministers over a decade ago, and the case made by Thames Water was not correctly put forward. We told them to go back and do it again. They have, and this will now be part of their water resources management plan, which will go to Ministers this year. I hope that we can learn from this. It should not take two to three decades for really important infra- structure to be built.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend knows of my affection for the Wye, that glorious river. Can he give any encouragement on the cleaning up and reduction of pollution in that river since his last answer?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Agricultural pollution, primarily through slurry spreading and the use of inorganic fertilisers, was responsible for roughly 70% of the phosphate pollution in that extraordinarily beautiful river. My Secretary of State has made this a personal mission: she hosted a round table in Hereford, bringing together all the stakeholders, where the main focus was to find the best ways to restore this river to a favourable condition. She identified a key point: one local authority, which was then run by the Greens and independents, had not even looked at, let alone refused, the application for a phosphate-stripping plant, which was put in by a company that was using chicken manure to produce energy. We really need to make sure that we are joining things up so that local authorities, the Government, the regulators, water companies and farmers are all working together to save this river.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the answers. I note the way that a question about a Welsh resource rapidly turned into an exchange of views about water in general. In asking my question, I pay fulsome tribute to my noble friend Lord Wigley in persistently asking for a listening ear for real Welsh concerns. It is not a question of generosity; Wales is happy to be generous. At the heart of my noble friend’s Question was a co-ordinated and focused policy with proper consultations and with a key role for the Senedd especially. I would like some reassurance that, of all the questions asked, that one was noted by the Minister.
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Lords, Lord Griffiths and Lord Wigley, are totally sincere in the points that they make. We are very keen that there should be an understanding of the need for fairness in all such discussions, whether we are talking about cross-border issues relating to water, the health service or the needs of a catchment such as the Wye, which we were just discussing. We treat these negotiations with the Welsh Government, Welsh organisations and local authorities very seriously and, I hope, with respect.
Housebuilding
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they expect that they will reach their target of building 300,000 new homes a year.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, we are continuing to work towards our ambition of delivering 300,000 homes a year. This has always been a stretching ambition, and we have made strong progress: the three highest rates of annual supply in over 30 years have all come since 2018. We are aware that increasing supply even further will be made more difficult due to the economic challenges we face, but we are engaging with Homes England, developers and registered providers to understand the delivery challenges they face.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
Has my noble friend seen today’s Times, which reports that new housebuilding is at its lowest level for 14 years, outside the Covid years? Has a much-needed recovery not been delayed by the concession on planning made in another place to a number of government Back-Benchers, which has already resulted in over 50 local authorities withdrawing their local plans with a view to submitting new plans with a lower number? If a Government make a manifesto commitment to build 300,000 homes, can they rely simply on the good will of local authorities to deliver it, or should we amend the levelling-up Bill to ensure that the country gets the homes it needs?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will start at the end. The proposed changes to the planning system set out in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill are designed to support more areas to get an up-to-date local plan in place, and therefore deliver more housing. The Government do not recognise the figure on withdrawn plans. Pauses and delays to plan-making are not something new, which is why we are determined, through our reforms, to reinvigorate local plan-making by simplifying it, speeding it up and strengthening the weight of democratically produced plans in this country. As for the article in the Times, yes, I have seen it and all I can say is that we still want to build more homes of the right type in the right places. We know that increasing housing supply will be made more difficult because of economic challenges, but we are working with the market very closely on the impacts, and to see what more the Government can do to provide support.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, we have a virtual contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, could not a land commission be established to research what the impact would be of building on land acquired at agricultural prices, as proposed by Lisa Nandy, and sold for housing of a new form of ownership title, as I proposed in previous debates in the House? Only by that means can we guarantee the target of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, thereby providing affordable housing to a new generation of young people who, without inherited wealth, may never be home owners.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The Government need to look at all opportunities for housebuilding but we have to look at brownfield land first, before agricultural land.
Lord Bird (CB)
Are the Government looking at the possibility of expanding home ownership to groups of people who do not have that chance at the moment, thereby creating greater sociability out of poverty, because home ownership is one of the best ways of ending poverty?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, and this Government are committed to supporting home ownership and first-time buyers. Since spring 2010, more than 837,000 households have been helped to buy their own home through the government-backed schemes, including Help to Buy and Right to Buy. We have looked at stamp duty and made that much more positive for first-time buyers, and I believe we are spreading the opportunity to more people through our First Homes Scheme, giving a minimum of 30% discount to people who cannot otherwise afford to buy in their areas. That is what we are doing to support home ownership.
Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register. May I point out to my noble friend that Governments do not build houses—the private sector builds them? The private sector will build only when it thinks there is a market for them. The Bank of England’s crashing of interest rates in its failed policy to drive down inflation is not going to be the solution. My noble friend must remember that the only time this country has ever delivered 300,000 units a year was when councils were freed up to deliver 70,000 or 80,000 units. Her department has removed two of the historic barriers, but will she look at removing the third? We removed the cap on right-to-buy receipts being spent—councils can now spend 100%, which is brilliant—and the cap on councils borrowing against the existing value, but we still need to remove the cap on their ability to set locally determined discounts.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My noble friend is right: it takes a whole government, and many departments of government, to ensure that we have housing supply. DLUHC and the Housing Minister cannot do it on their own, so we need to work across government. As far as local authorities are concerned, my noble friend is right that we are removing the barriers and local authorities are now building houses.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
It is in fact the turn of the Labour Benches.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, following on from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, the recent proposal by the Labour Party to remove hope value would allow social landlords more easily to develop the affordable homes our country so badly needs. Fewer than 7,000 were built last year but we need 90,000 every year, so it is not surprising that these proposed reforms are supported by a wide range of organisations, including the National Housing Federation and Shelter. What assessment have the Government made of the impact of high land values on our ability to deliver new social housing?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The noble Baroness has been involved in some of the Committee sessions of the levelling-up Bill, and she will know that we are looking at hope value and land prices. The Government particularly recognise the need for homes for social rent. That is why social rent homes were brought into the scope of the affordable homes programme, for example, in 2018. As I say, the levelling-up White Paper committed to looking at ways to increase the supply of social rented homes.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, 40 years ago SME builders built 40% of all new homes. Today the figure is around 10%. The Minister might therefore understand my disappointment that the Government have not accepted my amendment to the levelling-up Bill that would assist SMEs to build on small sites. Will she offer assurances today that the new NPPF, which is being revised and will appear soon, I hope, will have something in it to give SMEs hope that they can get back to building at scale?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am not going to get into what will and will not be in the NPPF at this time. What I can say about government support for SMEs is what we are doing at the moment. We have launched the Levelling Up Home Building Fund, which is providing £1.5 billion in development finance to SMEs and MMC builders and supporting them to deliver more homes. As the noble Baroness said, the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill will make changes to the planning system that will support SMEs by making the planning process faster and far more predictable.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Cross Benches.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, we have long had a housing crisis. Hundreds of thousands are homeless, millions are living in substandard and overcrowded accommodation, there are 2 million fewer social housing units than some decades ago and home ownership among the young has fallen dramatically. Does the Minister agree that we need to create many more than 300,000 new dwellings per year if we are to achieve a reasonable equilibrium in reasonable time in the UK’s housing market?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The Government’s view is that we need to deliver 300,000 houses per year by the middle of 2025. The noble Lord is right that we then need to look again at those numbers. The key to this is that local authorities look at the housing need in their areas and build to that housing need.
Electronic Passport Control Systems
(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 what action they are taking to improve the reliability of their electronic passport control systems.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
The UK border has a highly resilient e-gate infrastructure, with over 50% of all arrivals successfully using automation in the year ending March 2023. On Friday 26 May we had a nationwide border system issue, the unintended consequence of a change, which meant that we had to take our e-gates offline. We are undertaking a full review of the incident and are fully committed to ensuring that resilience is at the heart of our transformation of the border.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. When you are standing for many hours at an e-gate, resilient is not the adjective I would use, but at least the Home Office issued a press release the next day, saying that it had put in place “robust plans” to deploy officers. That is useful. Is it not time that we had a contingency plan for e-gates, three years after the Government vowed to take back control of our Brexit borders, rather than relying on the odd person to check your passport manually? Is it not more important to do that than to see the Prime Minister flying off to Dover, putting on a life jacket, standing in a dinghy and pretending he is King Canute to keep a few illegal immigrants out?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As the noble Lord well knows, 95.9% of recorded wait times in the first three months of 2023 were within published service standard. The UK border system has, as I have already said, a highly resilient e-gate infrastructure, with circa 65 million passengers being processed in the year to May 2023. There are currently 288 e-gates operational, comprising 22 at air and rail terminals, including in Paris, at Gare du Nord, and Brussels, at Gare du Midi. From April 2011 to June 2021, e-gates processed 258 million passengers through the UK border. As the noble Lord will see, it is a highly effective addition to our UK border infrastructure.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, the Minister said there was an issue. Will he give the House a hint as to what this issue was and who was responsible for it?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The noble Lord asks a fair question. However, as he probably knows, it has never been government practice, for reasons of law enforcement, to comment on operational issues relating to border security and immigration controls. This includes offering commentary on the performance of border systems and e-passport gates specifically. The e-gates process passengers arriving in the UK, and provide a secure border check on approved travel documents, and refer passengers to an officer if required. The current e-gate estate was upgraded in 2021. Incidents impacting the availability of e-gates are proactively managed, and lessons are learned. They have certainly been learned from this most recent incident.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend accept that more people would accept waiting rather better if everyone was polite? I have to say that border officials are very polite, but why is it that no notices say “please”? Could we please have notices that are polite instead of peremptory?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My noble friend makes a valid point, and I will certainly take that back to the department.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, this was a short-lived issue but there is a long-term issue for our airports, ports and Eurostar around longer times trying to get through passport control since Brexit. This week saw the final Eurostar Disneyland Paris train from London. The service is no longer viable because of longer check-in times, and Ebbsfleet and Ashford International have in effect been mothballed as Eurostar stopping points. Does the Minister agree that, instead of a declining network, the Government should be encouraging Eurostar to increase its network, because that is the most environmentally friendly way of travelling to and from Europe? What are the Government doing to renegotiate passport control arrangements to make travel easier in the future?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
International rail infrastructure is a very valuable part of our international travel systems. I am afraid it is beyond the ken of the Home Office to require Eurostar to run any particular route, but Border Force does facilitate the clearance of passports, as I have already said, in Brussels and Paris, and this works very effectively. As a result of the agreement with our French friends, they run checks in London, and those are sometimes the subject of delays. That can impact the running of trains; I entirely accept that.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I appreciate that the Minister probably does not want to use the word “cyberattack”, but I have a specific question. Will he go back and ask the department if it can open discussions with those producing and designing the technology to make it possible for those with little or no sight to use e-gates? At the moment, the design is so bad and the equipment so inadequate that it is not possible to use them.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The noble Lord raises a very important point. I will certainly look into that.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, unfortunately we are going to experience, by all accounts, a summer of discontent which will come from the security staff at airports; notwithstanding that the airlines and airports—the entire industry—suffered terrible hardships throughout Covid, this is pretty bad news. It is therefore not acceptable that we then have a repetition of these technical failures at e-gates. It obviously concerns inbound passengers and some who are on transfer but, in large airports, the backlog causes damage to our reputation among tourists and people travelling into the UK. Will my noble friend please speak to the Home Office and give us some assurance that we can minimise any of these failures in the future?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that question. The Home Office is not responsible for security facilities at the airports beyond those provided by Border Force. I reassure her that Border Force takes seriously maintaining the operation of the e-gates during peak periods. As I have said, we have certainly learned lessons from what happened last week.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord said that 95.9% of travellers go through the e-gate system within the published wait times. What is the position during half terms, when people are travelling with children and there are many more people travelling? Are extra staff put on during half terms?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I do not have those statistics to hand—I will of course find them and write to the noble Lord in respect of them—but, as your Lordships will recall, there was an SI approved by this House to lower the age at which children could use e-gates from 12 to 10. I am pleased to report that the pilot was incredibly effective and that it will now be rolled out across the e-gates by the end of July, so 10 year-olds across the country will be able to use them. This will increase the flow through airports, particularly during peak periods of half term and holidays.
Lord Cormack (Con)
Will my noble friend point out to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that he was maligning King Canute? King Canute sat at the water’s edge to prove that he could not rebuke the waves, not that he could.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I expect my noble friend does not really expect an answer to that.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how he intends to control British borders in the case of people coming from Northern Ireland via the Republic?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As a consequence of our long-standing treaty agreements with the Republic of Ireland, the common travel area means that one can travel seamlessly from the Republic into Northern Ireland and from all the other parts of the common travel area, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. It is obviously part of that agreement that the external parts of the common travel area operate border security of their own. That seems to have worked very effectively for the last century.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, my interest in this is that I was at Heathrow at the time in question. My flight was cancelled and I found myself in the unusual position of entering the UK barely two hours after I had left it. When I re-entered, it was just before the incident that we are discussing and I could not get through the e-gates, so I had to queue up. I can tell the House that, as I am sure the Minister is aware, even on occasions when the system is allegedly working there are many e-gates not in use. As part of the review that the Minister says is being undertaken into this important incident—by the way, the place was full of schoolchildren on their half-term holiday—he might want to take into account the fact that even on a normal “good” day, many e-gates are not in operation.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The noble Viscount identifies a good point and is as perspicacious as ever. We are certainly looking into having more of the e-gates operational more of the time. The plan in due course, as I have already informed the House, is to dispense with the need to place the passport on the e-gate and that it will recognise people’s faces as they approach it. That should accelerate the speed with which they can go through the e-gate. I hope that might address in due course the problem raised by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, as well.
British Nationality (Regularisation of Past Practice) Bill
Wednesday 7th June 2023
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate British Nationality (Regularisation of Past Practice) Act 2023 View all British Nationality (Regularisation of Past Practice) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text
Animal By-Products, Pet Passport and Animal Health (Fees) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 18 and 20 April be approved.
Relevant document: 38th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 5 June.
Illegal Migration Bill
Wednesday 7th June 2023
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Illegal Migration Act 2023 View all Illegal Migration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 133-III(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (6 Jun 2023)
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I propose that Clause 5, Schedule 1 and Clause 6 should not stand part of the Bill. I appreciate the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, on this. Clause 5 relates to the removal of a person, as the Minister said on Monday, “swiftly” after they arrive in the UK or, as he put it, “shortly” after their 18th birthday. But Clause 5 actually says
“as soon as is reasonably practicable”.
Without the regulatory impact assessment, we in Parliament cannot judge what is a “reasonably practicable” period. What we do know—the Ministers know this all too well because they are lawyers—is that case law determines that
“as soon as is reasonably practicable”
cannot be considered as “as soon as possible” or “as soon as feasible”, although the Minister wanted us to think that it does. I guess the Bill would be a deterrent if one assumed that no lawyers for anyone would read it. Of course, there is no baseline estimate of the amount of accommodation and staffing or other logistical requirements that will be needed. We need central government estimates on costs, as we debated on Monday.
As we start today it is worth reflecting on the Minister’s comments in Committee on Monday as to who is included as a person—or “P”. As we found, “P” includes a young woman trafficked to the UK—potentially via multiple trafficking handlers, blackmailed and threatened, most commonly with threats of rape or family retribution—for criminal sexual or labour exploitation.
Home Office data shows the number of irregular arrivals of women since 2018 who received a positive referral to the national referral mechanism was 520. Those 520 women had been criminally exploited, and now they would be imprisoned and deported to a strange third country and, as the Minister confirmed to me on Monday, with no statutory duty for resettlement, readmission or support. Of those women, 73 were 17 and under. Last year, 13 girls came from countries to which we cannot return them. So those sexually exploited girls are now due to be detained and possibly sent to Rwanda. Last year, 13 girls were trafficked for exploitation in the UK, and the Government would now no longer allow their referral for protection. Well, not in my name—and nor should be in the name of any Member of this Parliament.
The Minister told us on Monday that they were part of the gaming of the system. He repeated to me on Monday the false assertion that
“the numbers of people claiming to have been modern slaves in this scenario indicates that there is extensive abuse”.
He also said that
“the simple reality, I am afraid, is that our modern slavery protections are being abused”.
These are misleading talking points from the Minister, and from Suella Braverman, which led, in December, to a formal complaint from Ed Humpherson, the director-general for regulation in the Office for Statistics Regulation, the formal watchdog. In response to those assertions, he investigated the data and wrote to the Home Office on 8 December. In his letter, he said:
“However, policy officials in the department could not point to any specific evidence for this when we enquired. What is more, the proportion of referrals deemed by the Home Office to be genuine cases of modern slavery in its ‘conclusive grounds decisions’ has risen year by year from 58 per cent in 2016 to 91 per cent in 2021, which does not suggest in itself that gaming is a growing problem”.
He continued:
“I would be grateful if you could raise this matter with communications and policy colleagues, encouraging them to ensure that claims in public statements are clear on whether they are sourced from published statistics or from other reliable evidence. This will avoid the risk of misleading people to believe that the statistics say something that they do not”.
So the Minister came to us in Committee in the British Parliament and misled us to believe that the statistics say something that they do not.
What makes that worse is that, in January, Home Office officials accepted the rebuke. Professor Jennifer Rubin, the Home Office Chief Scientific Adviser, replied to the regulator:
“I am glad that you highlighted this issue … The Deputy Director responsible for the publication of the NRM statistics has recently written to the policy and communications Deputy Directors to encourage them to ensure claims made in public statements are sourced from published statistics or other reliable evidence”.
So I hope that, on subsequent days in Committee and when we get to Report, the politicians in the Home Office will also do what the officials have been told to do: not seek to mislead us but use information based on the data.
The data the Minister cited on Monday was also partial. He told me:
“In 2022, there were around 17,000 referrals to the NRM—the highest annual number to date and a 33% increase on 2021”.—[Official Report, 5/6/23; cols. 1199-1203.]
That is correct, but what did he not say? He did not say that, according to the latest Home Office data that he cited, 49% of all referrals—half—are for exploitation in the UK. That has nothing to do with overseas or from small boats; 41% are for exploitation overseas. The biggest increase that contributed to his statistics was child exploitation, growing from 498 to 4,410 in the UK. I ask the Minister: are these abused children in the UK gaming the system?
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I support the intention expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, to oppose the question that Clause 5 stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5(1) seeks to put into effect the removal of any person who arrives in the UK other than through a safe route even though, as we have already debated at length, safe routes are virtually non-existent for the vast majority of people coming to this country from Afghanistan, Sudan or Eritrea, for example.
Amendments 27 and 30, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, dealt with two of my major concerns about Clause 5, but there are other concerns. Amendments already tabled and some of those debated seek to protect victims of modern slavery and trafficking, as well as children. If this House approves those amendments, which I expect we shall, Clause 5 would contradict them. I will speak as briefly as I can. For example, Clause 5(1)(a) requires that the Secretary of State must ensure the person is removed, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has said,
“as soon as is reasonably practicable after the person’s entry”
to the UK. Subsection (4) restricts that requirement if the person has made a protection or human rights claim, but only if the Secretary of State considers that there are exceptional circumstances which prevent the person’s removal. Newly arrived people with no knowledge of the language or systems of the UK would need assistance for any such claim, and the Bill restricts access to assistance. Under Clause 5, therefore, a person is likely to be removed before they have had a chance to make a protection or human rights claim. Also, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has argued, it should not be possible for the Secretary of State to counter a protection or human rights claim, if one has been made, with a subjective power to determine that there are not “exceptional circumstances”. The inclusion of Clause 5 in the Bill would undoubtedly enhance the risks to victims of modern slavery or trafficking and to children, along with all others seeking asylum in the UK. I hope the Minister will agree that Clause 5 should not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I would like to ask some questions of the Minister, in relation to Schedule 1 and Clause 6. I have four concerns about these provisions.
First, I do not understand the rationale for the list in Schedule 1 and I would be very grateful if the Minister could explain it. It seems to me that, of the 57 countries listed, with only two do we have any form of removal agreement: Rwanda and Albania. Does it concern the Government, as it concerns me, that we are setting out a list of destinations without having any international agreement underpinning it in relation to particular countries?
Secondly, some countries among the 57 listed in Schedule 1 are not party to the refugee convention, so they are in no way bound by the same commitments on the treatment of asylum seekers that bind us. Are the Government concerned about that? I am concerned about it, and I am inclined to think that they should be.
Thirdly, it is not clear to me that all the countries of the 57 in Schedule 1 have any kind of asylum system or procedure. I am not sure that all these countries recognise the concept of asylum in law. Can the Government assure me that I am wrong, and that although some of these countries are not party to the refugee convention—that is a fact—they all have working asylum systems? If not, are the Government not concerned about that? I think we should be concerned about it.
Fourthly, we must ask the Minister to construe the language “in general”, which occurs twice in Clause 6(1). The Secretary of State may add to the list in Schedule 1 if he is satisfied that
“there is in general in”
the country in question
“no serious risk of persecution”.
How are we meant to construe “in general”? I do not think it is the kind of language that should be on the statute book.
The second occurrence in the clause is that the removal of persons to a country to be added to the list is possible only if it would not “in general” contravene the human rights convention and our obligations under it. Hold on: pacta sunt servanda. It is not a question of whether “in general” there is a contravention of the human rights convention—there is or there is not. If sending somebody to one of these 57 countries would be a breach of our obligations under the human rights convention in any way, it does not matter if the Government think that “in general” it is all right. The language “in general” should not be here, both on constitutional and legal grounds and on grounds of pacta sunt servanda. If it would breach in any way our commitments under the convention—I believe it would —we should not add the territory in question to the list in Schedule 1.
My last point is also a question about how we should construe the language. Clause 6 talks not just about countries or territories that could be added but about parts of a country or territory. The noble and learned Lord on the Front Bench spoke eloquently about India when we last discussed this, and I have been thinking about what he said. If I were a serving diplomat, I do not know how I would persuade any country—particularly India, but any country—to accept an international agreement with the United Kingdom in which it accepted that parts of its country were unsafe for an asylum seeker. I do not see how any self-respecting country such as India could possibly accept an agreement including a restriction to a part of its territory where an asylum seeker might be sent. We need the Minister to explain to us how we are meant to construe, in Clause 6(1), “in general” and
“part of a country or territory”.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, in the submission that Clauses 5 and 6 and Schedule 1 should not stand part of the Bill. The reasoning becomes increasingly repetitive and circular, because these provisions are parasitic on the meat of the Bill, which is really Clause 2. That is the duty that the Secretary of State is quite deliberately taking upon herself so that it looks as if no discretion is being exercised, she must remove people and therefore the courts have no ability to supervise that judgment. That is the heart of the moral and practical problem with the Bill, so when we look at the parasitic clauses that follow on from Clause 2, we come back to that central problem.
There are so many reasons why this is wrong in both principle and practice. As always, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, a most distinguished senior diplomat and former Permanent Under-Secretary to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—which is important. The poor old Home Office gets lumbered with all the tough talk and rhetoric and with translating press releases into legislation, but the foreign department has to represent this country all over the world, negotiate further treaties and hold its head up in its attempt to do so. The foreign department will no doubt try to persuade people that Mr Sunak is so right and that, as I said last time, we should be the hub of AI intelligence and the world regulator, and everybody should support the idea that these treaties should be formulated here. Once upon a time, we could have said that.
If any noble Lords, particularly on the Benches opposite, want to understand the importance of the refugee convention, not as it is being flexibly interpreted by the current Government but as it was intended after the war, they might care to read the correspondence between our wartime Prime Minister and the then Archbishop of Canterbury. That correspondence between Winston Churchill and William Temple is very revealing of what the obligations of the future treaty were going to be in relation to individuated justice for refugees, which of course is the problem.
We were treated last time to good cop, bad cop by two Ministers, from the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice respectively; I will leave Members of the Committee to decide who was which. But I think that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, was right in his rather forensic—if I may say so—examination to point out some tensions in the case as it was put by the two Ministers.
The Home Office Minister concentrated, quite rightly, on the message as we have heard it thus far: this is about deterrence; we do not want people to come here; this is all about stopping the boats. Therefore, he stressed the automaticity of Clause 2 and the absolute commitment—no ifs, ands or buts—to a duty to remove anybody who comes by an irregular route; no matter how genuine a refugee, they must be removed. When, as amendment after amendment was debated, and noble Lord after noble Lord gave the litany of heartbreaking cases of trafficked people, of gay people who should not be sent back to certain countries, and so on, the Minister from the justice department pointed up the possibility of exceptional non-suspensive claims—it will be all right, there will be the possibility of individuated justice in those cases. But, of course, both positions cannot be the case, and they were not intended to be. It was excellent advocacy, perhaps, but it does not stand up, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said so clearly in his introduction to the debate.
This is the blanket treatment of claims that were always intended to be considered in a case-by-case analysis. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, pointed out, there are countries, including very large democracies such as India, perhaps, that are perfectly safe for some people but not at all safe for others—because they are political dissidents, because they are queer, because they are women. That is conceded by the Home Office in the schedule that lists some countries as safe only for men.
It is a diplomatic nightmare to be creating this automaticity of “These are safe countries; these are unsafe countries” and to be telegraphing it in the schedule to the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Murray, will say, “There has been this development for some years under Governments of both stripes to have inadmissibility and presumptive safety”. It is one thing to say to your officials considering individual claims that some countries might be prima facie safe, but you still have a duty to consider the individual asylum seeker before you to determine what their story is. That was always the intention in the refugee convention and that is the obligation on signatories to it—and, I would argue, not just signatories any more because non-refoulement has become accepted as a principle of customary international law. That is what we propose to breach by this legislation.
That is how serious it is. The Bill is wrong in principle, wrong in practice and internally incoherent. Certainly, the arguments that have been put by Ministers—elegantly, charmingly, patiently, late into the night—do not hold together, and these provisions should not stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, following the eloquent speeches of my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, I would like to refer again to the proposal that Schedule 1 should not stand part.
Some of those countries breach protected rights. I ask the noble and learned Lord the Minister which of the countries on the list practise female genital mutilation and do not reserve refoulement only for men? Which criminalise homosexuality? Which criminalise humanism? Noble Lords may remember the case of the president of the Humanist Association of Nigeria, who has received a life sentence.
Surely it is very odd to remove people to those countries. Does the Minister think that that conforms to our signature to the treaties of international law?
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. I endorse everything that has been said in the debate so far, so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. I particularly want to follow on from what the noble Baroness said to the Committee about the suitability of some countries in Schedule 1 as places to which people should be returned; my noble friend Lord Kerr and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, developed that point in their interventions earlier. I will take one example but the arguments I am going to put to the Committee could be applied to other countries on the list as well.
The country I want to talk about is Nigeria. In a later group of amendments, I have Amendment 85C in my name, which seeks to establish
“how the Secretary of State will assess Equality”
provisions
“listed in Schedule 1 and the potential harm to those with protected characteristics including victims of Modern Slavery”.
However, I want to ask the Minister specifically to engage with the issue of justice in Nigeria. This is a country to which we have said it is safe to return men but not women. I argue that it is not safe to return anybody to Nigeria, given the way in which the internal factors in that country currently stand.
The seriousness of the situation was underlined by the visit of Karim Khan KC, the prosecutor for the International Criminal Court, to Nigeria in 2020. He is continuing the investigation into the war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetuated by Boko Haram and other factions—as well as the involvement, I might add, of the Nigerian security forces. That investigation began in December 2020 and continues. Whether or not the ICC will determine that a genocide or crimes against humanity are being perpetrated against the religious minorities in the north of Nigeria lies in the future, but the evidence of why this is a hostile environment in which people face outright persecution is overwhelming.
Simply consider the role of what are sometimes euphemistically called “bandit groups”. They have killed, abducted, forcibly converted and displaced vast numbers of people, many of whom end up in small boats. According to government figures, 4,983 women were widowed; 25,000 children were orphaned; and 190,000 people were displaced between 2011 and 2019, with more 3 billion naira paid to bandits as ransom for 3,672 individuals who had been abducted.
In one incident last year, IS West Africa killed eight people and kidnapped 72 people on a Kaduna-bound train from Abuja while, in 2022, Boko Haram killed at least 60 people from the community of Rann, in Borno State, and killed more than 15 women in Gwoza, also in Borno State. In June 2022, the United Nations reported that Boko Haram and splinter factions abducted at least 211 children, recruited at least 63 children, killed or maimed at least 88 children, raped or sexually violated 53 girls and attacked at least 15 schools. In September 2022, UNESCO estimated that 20.2 million Nigerian children were out of school as a consequence.
I think particularly of the plight of Leah Sharibu, who has just turned 20. At the age of 14, on 18 February 2018, she was abducted by Boko Haram, raped, impregnated and forcibly converted. She is one of 110 girls taken from the Government Girls Science and Technical College in Dapchi, in Yobe State. Here in your Lordships’ House, I met her mother, Rebecca. I promised that I would never miss any opportunity that might come my way to raise Leah’s case. I do so again today because it illustrates the dangers faced by people being sent back to Nigeria, whether they are women or men; indeed, if they come from religious minorities that do not fit a particular mindset or ideology, they are doubly endangered.
Elsewhere in the country, secessionist forces in the south-east of Nigeria and protests by the Indigenous People of Biafra led to gunmen killing, maiming and destroying the properties of citizens in the region. Armed forces against separatists have also been involved in at least 122 extrajudicial killings. Media reports suggest that more than 287 people were killed in the south-east between January and May.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I will not repeat what has already been said. I agree with most of what has been said in the preceding speeches, particularly the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Kerr about the inadequacy of Schedule 1, and all the examples that have been given, including those given very clearly by my noble friend Lord Alton, of cases which create real dangers of injustice which are plainly contrary to the international conventions to which this country subscribes. Instead, I want to obtain confirmation from the Minister of some short propositions which relate to Clause 6 of the Bill.
Clause 6 provides that the Secretary of State may amend Schedule 1 in certain circumstances. Can the Minister confirm that if a cogent application is made to the Secretary of State to amend Schedule 1 in particular ways and he refuses, that would immediately open the gate for judicial review proceedings? I foresee a menu of 57 opportunities in Schedule 1 for 57 applications for judicial review—perhaps a few fewer—being made by well-known and well-funded NGOs for amendments to be made to that schedule because of circumstances in those countries.
Further, would not the Secretary of State face considerable obstacles if such judicial review applications were made? First, there is the weakness of the standard of proof that is set by the Government for themselves—“if satisfied”, whatever that means. Secondly, in Clause 6(1)(a), which was referred to earlier, the Secretary of State can add a country or territory if satisfied that
“there is in general in that country or territory, or part, no serious risk of persecution”.
Does that not contradict certain other legal provisions which, for example, provide guarantees of safety to a group of people we discussed earlier this week—the cohort of LGBTQ+ people who might be affected?
Thirdly, Clause 6(1)(b) states:
“removal of persons to that country or territory, or part, pursuant to the duty in section 2(1) will not in general contravene the United Kingdom’s obligations”.
Is that not pathetically weak, and contradictory to other legislation? I again take the LGBTQ+ cohort as my example.
If that analysis of Clause 6(1) and Schedule 1 is not entirely coherent, surely it is enough to persuade the Government that they should really reconsider the drafting of Clause 6 and the contents of Schedule 1. If they insist on keeping Schedule 1, it should, from the start of the Bill coming into effect, reflect all the dangers in all countries in which there are dangers for certain groups of people who could not be described as people “in general”. This is ineffective, and I am sure it will put substantial fees into the hands of my learned friends, but that is not what this place should be trying to do.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I support these amendments and the speeches that were just given. I want to make two points only. First, it is extraordinary to me that Schedule 1 shows a list of countries with which this country has no agreement. I cannot understand how one can put into primary legislation a list of countries with which the Government hope to have an agreement, when that is not yet happening.
Secondly, I spoke earlier, at greater length, about the unaccompanied child who comes to the age of 18. Your Lordships have only to think of a child of 10, and we know that some children of 10 have come through. With any luck, a child of 10 will not be kept in Home Office accommodation; he or she is likely to go into the care of a local authority under the Children Acts and will very likely be fostered. It is comparatively easy to be fostered at 10. The child would have spent eight years at an English school, would have grown into speaking English, probably forgetting his or her own language to some extent, and will be settled.
Immediately after the age of 18—subject to the Home Office’s inordinate delays in removing people, but assuming that it achieves something better in the future—he or she can be removed and will go to a country. At the moment, there is only one, unless the child is Albanian, when they would have gone back earlier. That child aged 18, just grown up, will find him or herself in a country the language of which they probably do not speak and he or she will know absolutely nothing. I hope your Lordships agree with me that that, quite simply, is cruel.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I return to the terminology in general. I had tabled amendments in the last group on Monday night, which was a very big group. I could not find a polite way of describing drafting that I regarded as very poor. I resorted to saying that I thought it was
“not a very imaginative way to describe a situation”.
The Minister responding said that the term “in general” is
“not new: it is the test set out”
in legislation of 2002. He continued:
“Including a country in Schedule 1 simply requires the Secretary of State to be satisfied that it is considered generally safe”.
He then said that “the individual”—and noble Lords are absolutely right to remind us that we are talking about individuals, not amorphous cohorts of people—
“would still have the opportunity to challenge their removal”.
Later in the debate, when a similar point came up again, the Minister said:
“This is going to be a matter for the judicial process—through the appeal process, the legal advice and the legal representation that these people have. If they can show serious and irreversible harm, then they will not be sent to these places”.—[Official Report, 5/6/23; cols. 1216-35.]
Having criticised the terminology in general, given that the opportunities to challenge Home Office decisions in 2002 were considerably more than are presented in the Bill, I would like a detailed understanding of the Minister’s explanation of using the processes available.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, in Committee on Monday, the noble Lord, Lord Murray, used the example of India. We need to question not just how the list has been devised but the minimum criteria the Home Office wishes to have for each country before it even starts to discuss any agreement with it.
India does not have national asylum legislation: anyone who is a non-Indian citizen is determined as a foreigner under the Registration of Foreigners Act 1939, the Foreigners Act 1946 and the Foreigners Order 1948. This legislation generally governs foreigners within the territory of India. Article 2 of the Registration of Foreigners Act defines a foreigner as
“a person who is not a citizen of India”.
The other two pieces of legislation use the same definition. The Act and the order grant the Indian Government the power to restrict the movement of foreigners and carry out compulsory medical examinations, limit foreigners’ employment opportunities, and control the ability to refuse and return foreigners to their home country. All of these contravene the UN refugee convention. Refugee status is granted, but only to certain nationals of neighbouring countries. People with certain characteristics—for example, Muslims—are predominantly excluded from being granted refugee status.
People who are foreigners in India have further challenges when seeking asylum there: because of restricted employment, they find that they do not have sustainable livelihoods; there is no reliable community support network for refugees there; and access to specialised services for certain people or groups does not exist.
Quite bluntly, I ask the Minister this: is that the kind of situation he wishes to send some of the most vulnerable people in the world into? Ultimately, for every single country listed in Schedule 1, what criteria are the Home Office using before starting any negotiation with those countries?
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, many very cogent points have been made in this debate, and I will not repeat them, but I will mention one or two relating to the international dimension. I, too, believe that the use of “in general” is one of the slipperiest pieces of drafting that I have seen in a long time. I suppose that the Home Office may have been ashamed to put “in principle”, the words more often used to get out of commitments in international law than any others, but it means much the same thing. It has no place in this legislation.
Secondly, it seems an enormous hostage to fortune to put a list of countries described as “safe” into legislation tabled in March this year and which will not become statute until much later this year at the earliest. By that time, I suspect that quite a lot of things will have happened in some of the countries listed that will make them completely unsafe. I do not want to refer to individual countries, although people will be aware of what happened last week in Uganda. It is a moving agenda, and it is not wise to fix it in that way.
My third and last point is that there has been much talk of the Government concluding agreements with countries to enable us to send asylum seekers—without considering their asylum applications—to them. I imagine —and perhaps the Minister could reply on this point; it would be quite helpful if he could listen to what I am saying—that it would be useful to know whether those agreements would come before Parliament in the form that the International Agreements Committee of your Lordships’ House takes them. I take it that the answer will almost certainly be “No, they won’t, because they will be based on a memorandum of understanding”. This House has already debated this and established beyond peradventure that the use of a memorandum of understanding in the case of Rwanda was entirely designed to avoid any parliamentary scrutiny. Will the Minister say whether an agreement that will be reached for return will be subject to the international agreements procedure—CRaG—or not?
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed for his devastating critique of the government reasoning behind the measures in this Bill. As he said, the measures could have serious consequences for women and girls who have been trafficked, and he provided some examples of the sorts of numbers that might be involved. The facts presented by my noble friend appeared to show clearly that the system of referrals to the national referral mechanism is not being abused. As he said, much of the increase resulted from claims from those who were already legally in the United Kingdom.
I am very grateful—going back to Monday—to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, for indicating something of the thinking behind this Bill as far as the Government are concerned. He said:
“All I am saying is that one should have this power; I am not necessarily saying the circumstances in which one should exercise it”.—[Official Report, 5/6/23; col. 1229.]
I am beginning to wonder whether this is a sort of remake of “The Wizard of Oz”, with these very scary things being put up front with very little behind them. In reply to what my noble friend said about the vulnerable women and girls who could be detained and then deported from this country, the Minister said it might not happen because, as he said, all the Government are saying is that the Government should have the power to do that, but they are not necessarily going to use it.
In relation to Schedule 1—the safe countries—many noble Lords have given graphic examples of why countries do not belong on a safe list. I have to say: what is the point of the list? As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, said on Monday, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, who gave a particular example of a gay man being sent back to a hostile country:
“Secondly, and in practice, this is all predicated on the country being willing to accept them. At the moment, the only agreement we have is with Rwanda. There may well be others. I hesitate to give any commitment but it seems, if I may say so, most unlikely that the fears of the noble Lord are well founded. It is most unlikely that these postulated circumstances will arise in practice”.—[Official Report, 5/6/23; col. 1234.]
Well, if the Government are saying that each individual case will be considered on its merits, and if a country that is on the list is found to be not safe for that individual, what is the point of the list? What is the point if there is only one country—or potentially two countries—on the list to which the Government can return people? Is this just to try to scare the horses, with no substance behind it? That is increasingly what this Bill looks like.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I start, as other noble Lords have done, by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for his introduction, the quality of his speech and the comments that he made, which deserve a full answer, and I thank all noble Lords for the detailed and important contributions that they have made.
In that light, I ask the Minister whether he will take back to Downing Street the fact that we do not need to read on the front page of the Daily Telegraph that the PM is set to overrule the Lords on boats Bills. The quality of the contributions that have been made in today’s debate show the importance of the consideration in detail of the legislation. Indeed, the Minister will know, as has been reiterated through the usual channels, that it is not the view held by every single noble Lord that the Bill should be blocked; indeed, we on the Front Bench of His Majesty’s Opposition have said categorically that we will not block the Bill. However, we will not be intimidated by having people, even the Prime Minister, attempting to intimidate us into not properly scrutinising, in a detailed and forensic way, the operation of the Bill.
We can see from the way in which noble Lords have put forward various points and considerations today that there are real questions to answer. I do not believe that the Government Front Bench here or the usual channels did that; to be frank, I think they were probably taken by surprise by it as well. But it is important that we in this House recognise that we have a role to play, which is to revise and improve legislation. The Government are then perfectly entitled to turn around and say, “We totally disagree and we’re not going to take any notice”, but we do not need to be lectured on how we should not attempt to revise it in Committee or on Report. That is an important point to make.
The other point to make as we consider this is for us all to wish the noble Lord, Lord Murray, well in his attempt to get the impact assessment out of the Home Office well before Report. It is too soon for me to ask him in a nasty way whether he has yet had any success, but even if I do not return to this throughout the Committee, I am sure a number of other Members will ask him how it is going—so I will start the process by asking the noble Lord how it is going with regard to getting the impact assessment out.
I will say, without repeating many of the points that have been made, that my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti summed up a point that has been reinforced by many noble Lords. At their heart, Clauses 5 and 6 and Schedule 1 give effect to Clause 2. In other words, the Government require a blanket ban on asylum claims and therefore require, in a blanket way, people to be removed from the country. I have said time and again that that removal, as we have heard from many noble Lords, is without any real understanding of where to or what the consequences will be. I ask again: is it a fact that the Government believe that the threat of deterrence overcomes or supersedes individual human rights? That goes to the heart of what we are debating, and is a point that the noble Lords, Lord Carlile, Lord Kerr and Lord Hannay, have made on numerous occasions. Is it the case that the Government are prepared to accept that, under Clauses 5 and 6 and Schedule 1, individuals may well be at risk of persecution or may have a well-founded asylum claim but, because they have arrived irregularly, that does not matter and they are going to be sent to wherever? Is that the case or not? We could do with knowing the answer to that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, with permission, I will first respond to the first point from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and confirm that the Government’s Front Bench was as surprised by the report in the Daily Telegraph as everybody else.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Can I just confirm that the Minister means the Lords Front Bench?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
Yes, the Lords Front Bench—this Front Bench. I cannot speak for other colleagues, but I can assure the Committee that no one is attempting to intimidate this House. As I understand it, the Prime Minister is misreported in the Daily Telegraph—it is not the first time the press has misreported a politician—and the Government fully recognise the role that this House has to play in scrutinising the legislation. The Government’s duty, if I may say so, is to listen, reflect on what is said and respond as they think fit, depending on the strength of the points made and the Government’s general policy. I emphasise that there is no question but that this legislative process should be followed duly and properly throughout.
That said, and in relation to following established due process, as it were, we debated Clauses 5 and 6 in detail in Committee on Monday. With your Lordships’ permission, I will not repeat what I have already said in that respect and refer your Lordships to the record in Hansard. To the extent that some points have been repeated, I refer to what was said in the last debate.
If I may also respectfully say so, on various other points that have been raised—for example, in relation to Clause 2, to trafficking, to unaccompanied children and to agreements with third countries and so on— I will not go over the ground that has already been covered or is to be covered in debates on other clauses. These are matters that we are debating on another occasion—the legal rights and remedies, for example—so for today’s purposes I will concentrate on Clauses 5 and 6.
I should perhaps once again go over the ground of what Clauses 5 and 6 actually say. If I am right and your Lordships accept the analysis, I venture to suggest that at least a considerable part of your Lordships’ concerns may be reduced or laid to rest.
In simple terms, Clause 5 deals with two different groups. The first group are nationals, including persons holding an identity document, of the European countries listed in new Section 80AA of the 2002 Act, which are the EU member states plus Switzerland and Albania. If a national of one of those countries makes an asylum or human rights claim, they may none the less be removed unless there are exceptional circumstances. The exceptional circumstances, which again were referred to today by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, are defined in Clause 5(5). This part of the Bill is essentially the same as the structure that has stood for many years, including when we were part of the EU, with the addition of Switzerland and Albania. These are safe countries and, in the Government’s view, no reasonable objection can be made in relation to this group.
Now we have the second group, who are nationals of all other countries: those outside the European countries defined in new Section 80AA. What is the position in relation to those nationals? The first point to make is that if the migrant is a national of another country—with all respect to the Republic of Ghana, the Republic of Uganda or India, let us take Nigeria—and they make an asylum or human rights claim, for example because of a risk of persecution for their sexual orientation, they cannot be sent back to that country. That is clear from Clause 5(8), so a lot of the concerns expressed about persons being sent back to these countries will relate to nationals of those countries who do not want to be sent back to them. Unless others correct me, if they make a protection—that is to say, an asylum or human rights—claim, they cannot be sent back as nationals to those countries where they fear persecution. That is a very considerable safeguard.
Where can they be sent back to? They can be sent back only to another Schedule 1 country, but subject to very important conditions. The most important condition in this context is that set out in Clause 5(3)(d): only if there is reason to believe that they would be admitted to that country. In other words, it depends on whether we have an agreement with that country to take them back. That is not at present the case, except in relation to Rwanda, but it may in future be the case in relation to other countries.
To take a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, or possibly the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, as to whether such future agreements would be—forgive me, it was the noble Lord, Lord Hannay—subject to parliamentary scrutiny, that is a matter for the future. I cannot commit the Government on that here at the Dispatch Box. However, I think your Lordships can be reassured that the availability of all kinds of remedies and the force of public opinion in this country would necessarily require a very full debate to take place before we made an agreement with another country. There is the constitutional safeguard of the constitution of public debate in that regard.
There is no indication that the countries mentioned in this debate—very understandably, Nigeria, Ghana, Uganda and even India—are likely to be, in any foreseeable future, places to which the relevant migrants could be sent. If we were ever to reach an agreement with another country, the Secretary of State has powers in Clause 6, in particular Clause 6(3), to exclude from that agreement persons of particular sexual orientations or with particular protected characteristics set out in that clause. That is a further protection against the fears noble Lords have expressed.
If all of that were to fail, it remains the case that the individual affected could make his suspensive harm application on the basis that he would suffer irreversible serious harm in that context. I think I can legitimately offer noble Lords reassurance that a great deal of the fears understandably expressed in your Lordships’ Committee rest on a particular view of the Bill that is not entirely correct.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick—it was implicit in most of the other comments—what Schedule 1 is for. I think the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, asked what the rationale of Schedule 1 is. The answer is that Schedule 1 is a reproduction, an amalgamation and a restatement of all the existing legislation from 2002 onwards, in which various countries over the years have been added as safe countries. For example, in 2005 the Labour Government added India on the basis that it was, in general, a safe country.
This also enables me to deal with the “in general” point, which has stood as a statutory point for the last 20 years at least. It might not be entirely within the active career of the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Kerr, but it has been on the statute book for 20 years. It has not so far given rise to any particular difficulties. That is the background to what we are considering.
In the future, it might be appropriate to keep Schedule 1 updated; it might be necessary to make changes from time to time. Let us cross those particular bridges when we get to them. At the moment, there is no practical possibility of Uganda, for example, accepting migrants who arrive in Dover into Uganda. It might be, to take a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that the existence of Schedule 1 or the failure to amend it, might be challenged in judicial review. If I may respectfully say so, it would be a somewhat adventurous case to compel a Minister to legislate or to amend primary legislation, but let us again cross those bridges when we get to them.
I hope that I have not taken up undue time and have covered most of the questions that I was asked. I am sure that I shall be reminded if I have not done so; I will do my best to answer them, if anyone reminds me.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
The Minister kindly said that, if he had not answered anything, he would do so. Would he please write to me about which countries practise female genital mutilation, criminalise homo- sexuality and criminalise humanism?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question, but I cannot answer it today at the Dispatch Box. My respectful reply is that this issue does not arise for the reasons I have given. The Bill does not envisage, at the moment, returning people to such countries. The general position is that we can continue discussing the provisions on legal requirements, trafficking, unaccompanied children and so forth, but this part of the Bill is an essential part of the Bill. I therefore beg to move—
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I am most grateful to the Minister and have great respect for his legal analysis. However, I will correct him on the point I made about judicial review. I was not saying that a judicial review could be taken in which the order would be for the Minister to amend the law. The Minister cannot amend the law; we in this Parliament amend the law. The application would be for a judicial review of the refusal of the Minister to take steps to amend the law. That is quite a different matter, and I do not apprehend any difficulty in making such an application for judicial review.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, if I misunderstood his point. I respectfully continue to beg to differ as to both the likelihood of such judicial proceedings or the relevance of such judicial proceedings to today’s stand part debate. So, if your Lordships permit me, I beg to move—
Lord Swire (Con)
I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests. I ask, gently, whether my noble and learned friend the Minister would not agree that it is worth reminding ourselves that some of these countries—indeed, all those we talked about in the last hour—are Commonwealth countries, including Uganda, India and Ghana. It is worth remembering that Rwanda is not only a Commonwealth country but the current chair-in-office of the Commonwealth, so, surely, that must count for something.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I entirely accept the point my noble friend makes and thank him for it.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
The noble and learned Lord is so reassuring, and his manner is so friendly, that one is tempted to believe that this might all be as good as he says. On the two-part process, he says that the list sets out possible destinations, but that the Secretary of State would make a judgment about the individual and whether the individual should not be sent to a particular country for reasons particular to the individual. If it were the noble and learned Lord making these decisions, I would be very reassured; unfortunately, it is the Home Secretary.
I am sorry to press the Minister but he has not really answered my question. He says that the list is based on history, but in the past we have not sent people compulsorily to go through an asylum process in another country—so there is something new here. Further, we have not been sending people to countries where there is no asylum process but we are insisting that they must seek asylum there. I do not think the noble and learned Lord has addressed that point.
I would also be grateful if the Minister would construe for us the language in the first paragraph of Clause 6, which addresses “in general” and “a part”. I have not heard his answer to my question as to why it is all right that a country should not in general contravene the human rights convention—implying that if in particular it does, we do not care—and, secondly, why it refers to part of a country or territory. I do not understand how we can get an international agreement with a counterpart. If I am a negotiator, how do I persuade him to accept that there are parts of his country that are unsafe and parts of his country that are safe? Surely the agreement has to be with the other country in respect of the full territory of the other country, not in respect of part of the territory.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, in relation to the latter point, I repeat the point I made on Monday that this is precautionary. There is no reason to deprive oneself of the possibility of providing for “a part”. With an enormous country such as India, it may be that up in Nagaland or somewhere there are some disturbances, but that does not prevent us saying that India is a safe country. That is the Government’s answer to the first point.
Our answer to the second point is that the words “in general” have—I am open to correction and I will correct myself if I am wrong—stood for 20 years on the statute book without difficulty and do not preclude, in an individual case, an application being made to oppose removal on the grounds of irreparable harm. It is the combination of a general view that the country is safe with the possibility of individual protection. Those are essentially the answers I gave on Monday.
I entirely accept the noble Lord’s point that this is new, but, for the reasons I have tried to explain, it is a workable and, I submit, balanced approach to a very difficult problem which the Bill is trying to solve.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
As always, the Committee is very grateful to the Minister. I want to be absolutely certain that I have understood his case, because this is so important. My understanding is that he is reassuring the Committee on the basis that, first, nobody is going to be sent to the country that they fear in the first place—they are not going to be sent back directly to the country that they have escaped from and which they say was originally persecuting them—and, secondly, they can be sent only if there is a deal with a country. So maybe this is all going to be rhetoric in the end: we are going to tell the British people that we are stopping the boats, and we are going to warehouse more and more people under this whole edifice because there will be a duty under Clause 2 to remove people to places where they are irremovable to because there is no deal. Thirdly, the Minister points to the little chinks in the scheme whereby somebody might make some kind of exceptional non-suspensive claim. That is what I understand to be the three parts of his case.
On sending people to third countries that are unsafe because they are gay or because there is some other reason why that individual person would be at risk, it matters not that they would be unsafe in a third country or unsafe in a first country. In relation to the other little nudges and winks that he offers us—that this is perhaps fiction because in the end we do not have deals with a lot of these countries—that might be some comfort to people coming, and maybe even to those smuggling them, but it is certainly no comfort to the British people on the cost or on the toxicity of the debate we are having about stopping the boats, when actually the boats are not likely to be stopped.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, it is a question of judgment. The Government’s judgment is that this legislation will go a long way towards reducing the terrible risks that people and unaccompanied children are facing in crossing the channel in difficult circumstances, and will destabilise the business model of the people smugglers. Those are surely legitimate objects for any Government to pursue.
The noble Baroness’s analysis is essentially correct: if I am a national of a particular state and I make an asylum claim or human rights claim then I cannot be sent back to that country; I could be sent back to a country with which—she puts it somewhat colloquially, and I would not quite use these words—we have a deal. The country with which we have a migration partnership at the moment is Rwanda, so that is still a possibility, subject to the individual in that case being able to make an application for either a factual suspensive application or an application based on imminent and foreseeable and serious harm. That is how it works, and that is how the Government see it.
While I am on my feet, I will address the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about whether the threat of deterrents supersedes individual human rights. For the reasons I have given, our answer is that there is no question of superseding individual human rights due to the protections I have just explained. Refoulement is covered by the existing agreement with Rwanda, and I am sure it will be covered in future agreements.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I wonder if an answer could be given to the question from the Minister’s colleague on the Benches behind him, who asked about Commonwealth countries. Would the Minister agree that many of the Commonwealth countries have laws which criminalise homosexuality? Indeed, Uganda has just passed legislation which says that the death penalty can be used in relation to homosexuality, and in India there are currently a lot of issues and questions about the treatment of Muslims there. There might be very real issues even when it comes to Commonwealth countries.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness says, there might indeed be issues. Their legislation is a matter for them. The fact that they are members of the Commonwealth which upholds, or seeks to uphold, barest basic standards is a relevant background consideration, as the noble Lord pointed out.
For the reasons I have given, as best I can, the protections in the Bill are adequate to deal with the problems that have been raised. I respectfully say that Clauses 5 and 6 and Schedule 1 should stand part of the Bill.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for his thorough response, and to those who have spoken.
I looked at the reference to the Commonwealth when the Bill and the schedule were published. It is worth noting that 76% of Commonwealth countries are not considered by this Government to be safe, because 76% of the Commonwealth is not in the schedule. That is not us questioning it; that is the Government making their own decision.
The Minister, in his typically emollient way, suggested that we do not really understand these clauses and that if we did we should not be concerned because, as he put it, the legislation will have no practical operability. We are in a situation where the Home Office is doing the reverse of virtue signalling, which is to try to create, as my noble friend Lord Paddick indicated, the most punitive and threatening environment, of which the justice department will have to pick up the pieces. The Minister has been at pains to point out that there are many elements which would mean that there is no practical operability, but we are being asked to legislate for this, and on the basis of a lack of agreements.
On Monday, the Minister said to me:
“I suppose that the direct answer is that one would have to negotiate an appropriate agreement with the country concerned”.—[Official Report, 5/7/23; col. 1229.]
As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and others indicated, the Government have not done so, but they are still asking us to legislate. The Minister said that, when we are negotiating some of these agreements in the future, there would be a “force of public opinion” on the agreements and debate. But on the only one that we have, with Rwanda, there was no debate or consultation. We were surprised by it. It was not a treaty that was ratified by Parliament; it was an MoU. The International Agreements Committee forced a debate on the MoU in this House, in which noble Lords took part, and the committee raised the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about refoulement. Unfortunately, this is the pattern of the Government.
On Monday, the Minister was not even able to confirm to me—he said he would write to me and I am grateful for that—that there are child facilities in the Rwanda agreement, because it was not designed for that in the first place. That addresses the point that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, indicated with regards to those who are children. I referenced 73 children, up to 2022, who would be in the situation of being referred to protection and then on their 18th birthday would receive, under the Bill, a third-country notice, and they would have no idea what that country would be.
Baroness Hamwee
(c) the Secretary of State has published guidance regarding what criteria will be used to determine the order in which individuals who the Secretary of State is required by section 2(1) to make arrangements for removal will be removed from the United Kingdom.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment regarding the process the Home Secretary will put in place to determine the order in which individuals will be removed from the UK once the duty to remove is in force.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, Clause 7 relates to further provisions about removal. I have three amendments in this group. Amendment 55—I apologise for the grammatical error in it—would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance about the criteria for the order in which individuals are to be removed. It is not likely to be a tidy process and, as we have been debating for two and a half days now, an awful lot of people will be involved.
Therefore, as much transparency as possible about the process is required. For instance, will decisions be taken on the basis of how long individuals have been detained compared with others, where they have been detained, the receiving country, a mixture of all of these, or none of them? On Monday we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, about a woman who had been waiting for 10 years—sadly, not that unusual a situation. The people who will be subject to these provisions are left not knowing what is going to happen to them. The lack of certainty is, to my mind, a cruelty among many others. To know not just that the decision is unfavourable but when its implications are going to be felt in the form of removal, as distinct from detention, will be very relevant.
Amendment 55A probes the process of notifying the Secretary of State under Clause 7(3)(b) regarding a suspensive claim, that the individual P
“does not intend to make a suspensive claim”
and proposes that that can be made through an immigration officer. I assume that that is the case. After all, the Secretary of State does not deal personally with every single application. However, with regard to the reference to notification being given orally, I want to raise the problem in my mind that it is too easy to be misrepresented when you make an oral representation, or simply not heard. I hesitated about tabling an amendment here because, on the other hand, I do not want to disadvantage an asylum seeker by requiring notification in writing if that is a difficult thing to do. I assume that P’s representative can give the notification on P’s behalf, but I would be glad of that assurance and also to know who that representative can be. Would it have to be a legal representative or could it be somebody who was providing support through one of the many organisations that work in this sector?
Amendment 57A would leave out the term “or indicated” in Clause 7(8). That provides for directions to transport officers about removal in a ship or whatever other vehicle
“specified or indicated in the direction”.
What does “indicated” mean? Does it mean “a ship” or “a train”? I suppose the latter would be Eurostar or perhaps a train between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic—I do not know. It seems—again referring back to the previous debate—that “indicated” is perhaps a rather loose term. I may be wrong—I will probably be told that it is used in other legislation—but I would be glad to hear from the Minister what we should understand by it. I beg to move Amendment 55.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I have Amendment 57 in this group, and also the clause stand part debate. I will address my Amendment 57 first, but there are serious matters in the clause as a whole which I will come back to in a moment.
Amendment 57 addresses the far-reaching and perhaps unrealistic legal obligations being placed on private actors and companies to effect removal. This includes the captain of a ship, the pilot of an aircraft, the train manager or the train driver being required to enforce removal of an individual by enforcing detention on the ship, aircraft or train, if required, to prevent disembarking before removal has been fulfilled—and also of course to do it the other way round, as these people are mandated to ensure that the person is taken by those means of transport to the country to which they are being deported.
Two things arise from this part of the clause. One is that it gives inordinate powers to the Secretary of State to requisition not just ships, boats, aeroplanes and whatever else but the services of those who run those means of transport to detain and restrain those who are being transported. I will address in a moment the criminalisation of those people in making them subject to this sort of regulation.
The Explanatory Memorandum says that the Government will procure those services by privately chartering planes or ships or whatever but, clearly, this part of the clause, as drafted, gives the power to the Government to requisition those services. The Explanatory Memorandum also says that the Government can requisition scheduled services—scheduled flights to Kigali, perhaps. There are no direct flights from the United Kingdom to Kigali, by the way, and the flights are all operated by airlines based mostly in the European Union. So the Secretary of State can intervene in scheduled flights and require that they take the asylum seeker to a destination.
The other problem is that clearly, there has been no consultation on this matter with those who are now going to be required by the Government to execute this role on their behalf. To emphasise that, I will read to the Committee the views of the UK Chamber of Shipping, the people whose vessels are likely to be requisitioned:
“We are greatly concerned about these clauses becoming law which could require the ship’s master and crew to detain passengers, something which they are not trained to do, at the direction of the Government. The clauses also seem to allow the Secretary of State to set the period for which a ship’s master is required to detain a person on board a vessel—this could potentially lead to a situation where a ship’s crew is stuck in port for an indeterminate amount of time having received an instruction to detain individuals who are then awaiting the outcome of various legal processes to determine their rights. We are concerned that this puts seafarers at much greater risk from positions of conflict and potential harm”.
That is from the chamber of shipping, which obviously has not been consulted. We have also received a letter from the RMT that makes the same points.
The issue here now is: why has this power been taken? The situation is very similar to that in the Nationality and Borders Bill, which, Members of the Committee will remember, would also have criminalised seafarers who perform humanitarian rescues of persons in distress at sea and bring them to the UK, but those provisions were dropped from that Bill because these people should not be criminalised in this manner.
My first question to the Minister is: if it was determined and agreed by Parliament that this sort of clause was not required for the Nationality and Borders Bill, what is different now? How are the circumstances different? Is it because there are many people—airline pilots or crew, perhaps—who have not been willing to deport people in the manner the Government propose? Secondly, is it because the Government are not intending to provide anyone to accompany these people on their journey but are expecting them to be dealt with entirely by the crews of existing means of transport?
It is beyond my ability to understand why this law is now being put in place when it was previously deleted from an Act that had some of the same intentions. It seems to me that this is an unworkable section of the Bill, particularly in respect of people’s understanding of how they are to be expected to carry out jobs for which they have received no training, in which they have no experience and which they may find morally repugnant.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, the following group, which I will lead on, deals specifically with the impact of this legislation on workers in the transport industry. I have one question on Clause 7(8) which places responsibilities on
“owners or agents of a ship, aircraft, train or vehicle”.
These responsibilities are onerous. Have the Government consulted the people involved and made an assessment of the impact? Will those issues be dealt with in a weighted impact assessment?
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, this Bill is about removing rights and making life as miserable as possible for some of the most vulnerable and desperate people in the world. I find it impossible to understand how we have ever come to this point. Part of this process is removing human rights with regard to access to the courts—removing the courts’ ability to intervene when the Government act unlawfully. How can that happen? How can this come to us in any sort of legislation? Detaining and deporting people without providing them with any legal advice, or even any information about how to obtain legal advice, all contribute to this denial of human rights.
I was in Belgium for a few days last week. I speak decent French and some German and there were times when I could not understand a word anyone was saying. The idea that we might not help people in a language they can understand and communicate in astonishes me.
We are in an absurd situation where murderers and paedophiles could be more kindly treated by the law than, for example, a desperate family who arrive in a small boat from across the channel.
Then there is the outrageous Clause 7. This is bonkers. When I first read it, I had to laugh—it sounds like something a two year-old might come up with. It says that the Secretary of State can commandeer
“any ship, aircraft, train or vehicle”.
So the border patrol—or whoever it is—can stuff people into somebody’s car and say, “Right, you are responsible for them. You get them out of the country”. It is astonishing. Who wrote this? How does this come from a Government whom we sort of hope might be able to tough it out for the next few months—actually I do not want them to tough it out; I want them to go. Presumably, this Government do want to tough it out, so why bring this sort of rubbish to this House? It is actually quite offensive.
In Clause 7, they are asking ordinary citizens—the British public—to act as border enforcement agents. I do not think any of us would want to do this, even the most rabid ERG member you could possibly think of. This is part of the problem with the Bill. It is not going to help the situation in any way at all. Is it designed to pander to the extreme right wing of the Government, so that they can say they are doing something and perhaps retain those votes? I have no idea. The thought processes are beyond understanding. Clause 7 is unbelievably bonkers.
It shows how this Government are trying to exploit Just Stop Oil, asylum seekers or people such as that to make the public think they are actually doing something about the problems these people are facing. I really hope that we defeat quite a lot of this Bill before it gets much further.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, what rights people have when they come into this country—unlawfully, the Government claim, although some of us would disagree—is surely an essential part of this Committee’s consideration of the Bill. I know the Minister is a member of the Bar and has practised in criminal courts and elsewhere, so he will understand instinctively how important the question of rights is for people who have just come into this country, often in a destitute state.
We know that later in Committee we will debate legal aid and the Lord Chancellor’s duties. Those are important matters to be considered then but I wonder, given the speeches that have been made on this group, whether he has something to say about the Government’s attitude towards the rights of people whom he or others may not like, but who do have rights when they arrive in this country. Do we just say that there are no such rights—no right to any advice or legal aid, if that is necessary, because they deserve what comes to them—or do we take the more sensible and British attitude that anybody who ends up on our shores and is in trouble should be entitled to some advice?
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, broadly speaking, I support this Bill, but there are many things in it which give me cause for concern and we have now hit one of them. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned it—the extent to which the state can co-opt unwilling people to implement its legislation. Regarding those who happen to be the driver of a train or pilot of an aircraft that has on board what we are now going to determine is an illegal immigrant, how can we force such people to act as agents of the state in detaining them?
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned that this will come up in the next group but it is an important, fundamental point. I am not talking about the refugees but the many trade unionists who will be horrified at the thought of being co-opted as almost part of the police. This is not on. Before the Bill moves to the next stage, I hope the Government can come forward with some proposals which will exempt ordinary workers from becoming its policemen.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, the amendments in this group all seek clarification of various issues. My noble friend Lady Hamwee rightly asked what priority is to be given to removals under the Bill, bearing in mind that the uncertainty is very corrosive of people’s mental health. She asked how P will give notice to the Home Secretary and spoke about the dangers inherent in oral notice being given. She said that that could easily be regarded as giving notice that they do not intend to make a suspensive claim, and she spoke about the danger of language difficulties, misinterpretation and so forth.
My noble friend Lord German and other noble Lords raised the question of requiring private individuals to carry out enforced removals. Most, if not all, will not have been trained in or compensated for undertaking the risks associated with forcibly removing people from this country. He also asked a very important question about consultation. Who has been consulted: trade unions, to which the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, referred, or the commercial organisations that are going to be required to undertake this work? There are other uncertainties, as my noble friend Lord German set out. It would be most helpful if the Minister provided answers to these questions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has a habit of saying what many of us are thinking, but we may not be prepared to stand up and use her exact words. What I would say about Clause 7 is that it smacks of desperation.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, this group centres around Clause 7, as we have heard, and seeks clarification on procedures which outline the provisions about removal. There are several smaller amendments by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord German, on the details of removal. Probably the most important amendment is Amendment 55, in the name of the noble Baroness, which would ensure that the Government produce guidance on the criteria by which individuals will be prioritised for full removal.
In her very extensive introduction, the noble Baroness asked who P’s representative can be when going through this process. Should the representative be a lawyer, someone from an NGO or some other status of representative? If I might be allowed a short recollection, I sat in on an immigration tribunal at Hatton Cross as a member of the public. I was astonished that neither the applicant going through the immigration tribunal process, nor their representative, spoke English. That was the reality of the situation that I witnessed. I very much hope that, in the sorts of examples that we are talking about in this Bill, P will be properly informed about the processes that they are going through, that they know what their rights are and that they can make their decisions as appropriate.
Amendment 57, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord German, is about the requisition of services by private actors and companies. He explained his amendment very fully. It may be unfortunate that this overlaps a lot with group 3, as my noble friend Lord Davies has just said, but nevertheless that is where we are. My noble friend asked about representations and what consultation has been done with the trade union movement about who will be asked to play their part in working in these companies. I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s answer to my noble friend’s questions.
On the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Coaker and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones—I will not even attempt the rhetoric of the noble Baroness; it is just not my style—the point, nevertheless, is that the recipient needs to understand what is being said to them and the language must be appropriate. This is a common-sense amendment. It is a simple amendment. I hope that the Minister can indicate that some form of wording can be found in this Bill to ensure that P, who is the subject concerned, understands what is happening to them. We support the amendments in this group.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
My Lords, Clause 7 makes provision for a removal notice to be given to a person and specifies what information this must contain. Each notice must specify that the individual is to be removed under the duty, be clear on their destination and set out a claim period in which to make a factual suspensive claim or a serious harm suspensive claim. That is, of course, suspensive of removal.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, described her Amendment 55 as a probing amendment, seeking to elicit our intentions as to the order in which individuals will be removed from the UK under the duty to remove in Clause 2. The whole purpose of the Bill is to remove persons who satisfy the conditions as soon as practicable. On the day of commencement, we will be dealing with two separate cohorts. First, there will be those who enter the UK illegally on or after the commencement date. Putting unaccompanied children to one side, as we already have debated how they will be considered, our aim will be to process new arrivals as quickly as possible as they arrive. Clearly, the speed with which individuals are removed will depend on whether they consent to a voluntary departure or, if not, whether they make a suspensive claim. Secondly, as we have discussed, the Bill will have a retrospective effect and the duty to remove will apply to those who entered illegally on or after 7 March this year. Where, in the case of this cohort, any asylum or human rights claim has not been decided by the commencement date, we will commence removal action in accordance with the duty in Clause 2, in parallel with the enforcement action that is being taken against new arrivals.
I assure the Committee that the necessary planning is under way to support the effective and efficient implementation of the Bill, which will ensure that we have an integrated and robust end-to-end process from arrival through to removal. This will cover the use of detention, case-working operation, management of appeals and the logistics associated with the returns themselves. I agree with the noble Baroness that development of robust guidance and training will be a key component across all of this. However, while work on implementation is well under way, we should not get ahead of ourselves. First, we must get the Bill on to the statute book in a form that is operable. We cannot be legislating for a scheme that is so full of holes that it is unworkable.
Amendment 55A seeks to probe how the process will operate, should an individual indicate that they do not wish to make a suspensive claim. If an individual notifies the Secretary of State that they do not intend to make a suspensive claim, the person may be removed to the country or territory which they have been given notice of. As the noble Baroness suggests, such notification may be to an immigration officer or a Home Office official. Where it is given orally, it will be duly recorded. I hope that affords an answer to her point.
Amendment 56, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, would set out in statute two additional requirements to the notice, which must be given to the person before they may be removed—that it is provided in a language which they understand and provides information on how to access legal advice. It would be prohibitively expensive to provide translations of decision notices in all possible languages and dialects up front, and there would be a time delay in doing this on an individual basis. It is therefore more efficient to work with interpreters. It is already our current policy to ensure, when serving notices in person, that the contents are explained to the individual in a language which they understand, using interpretation services where required. We also provide information on how to access legal services where relevant.
On the question of legal advice, I reassure the Committee and the noble Lord that, in giving this notice, we will ensure that we also provide information on how to access any legal advice which individuals are entitled to and on how to make a voluntary departure. We will discuss this further in relation to the legal aid provisions, which will come before the Committee in the next few days. Therefore, it is unnecessary to put these additional requirements into the statute.
Amendment 57, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord German, deals with the legal obligations that these provisions place on transport operators. The noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Paddick, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and my noble friend Lord Balfe raised the same point. This amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, pointed out, overlaps with his own group of amendments, which we are debating in the next group. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord German, will be content if I deal with the substance of his Amendment 57 when we reach Amendment 57B.
Amendment 57A seeks to test the drafting of Clause 7(8), where it refers to a vehicle being
“specified or indicated in the direction”.
A direction “specifying” a ship, train, aircraft or vehicle may refer to a particular ship et cetera scheduled to depart at a specified date and time, whereas a direction “indicating” a ship may be a more generic item, for example, specifically or simply referring to a flight to depart that day rather than to a particular flight. Moreover, I point out that the drafting here is drawn from and reflects long-established terminology used in Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971.
I will deal briefly with Clause 9. It simply makes a number of consequential amendments to existing immigration legislation to ensure that it works smoothly. There is no contradiction alongside the new provisions for removal in the Bill.
To respond to the noble Lord, Lord German, persons served with a removal notice will have eight days to submit a suspensive claim beginning from the day that they were given such a notice. We will come on to Clause 54 in due course; as I have already said, it provides for free legal advice for those issued with a removal notice. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Bach, persons subject to the duty to remove will have access to advice.
Lord German (LD)
I was interested in two stages. The Minister has talked about when the notice of removal is issued. Presumably there is also a statement of inadmissibility when you have arrived, because it takes some time to prepare the document or whatever the detail is for a removal certificate or notice. Is there an earlier notice? If so, is that the place where people can seek advice?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I do not have the answer to that at my fingertips but, if I may, I will revert to the noble Lord with it. I suspect that the availability of legal advice will be drawn to the attention of individuals at the earliest possible time, but I will check that point and come back to the noble Lord.
In conclusion, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, made some valid points on which I will further reflect. I hope I have at least gone some way to respond to the probing amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. On that basis, I ask whether she is content to withdraw her Amendment 55.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, it is Committee stage and, as the whole Committee knows, that is what I will do.
On this amendment, the Minister said, possibly twice, that things will be done “as soon as practicable”, but we know that not very much is practicable. It sounds like a parallel, idealised—well, it is not ideal to me but it may be in the Government’s mind—universe where all is possible. On the previous group, my noble friend referred to being somewhere within the wizardry of Oz. I do not know who is which character, and perhaps it would be inappropriate to speculate. However, the point about uncertainty in the minds of the individuals concerned is serious, which is why I made it earlier.
I do not think the Minister answered my question on Amendment 55A about whether notification can be given by a representative of the individual and whether that has to be a legal representative or could be a support worker from an organisation in the sector. Is he able to respond to that now?
Lord German (LD)
I also asked a question to which the Minister did not reply, about a person escaping from South Sudan via Kenya. Kenya would be treated as an unsafe country because it is in Schedule 1. Could the Minister respond to that when he has a moment?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I apologise for not answering the noble Baroness’s question. Yes, is the answer; representatives could be provided in that way.
To reply to the hypothetical situation that the noble Lord referred to about someone from South Sudan travelling via Kenya, it would depend on the facts of the specific case and whether the conditions were met. It is perhaps not directly relevant to the debate we are having on this amendment, but I am happy to consider that hypothetical in more detail and write to the noble Lord.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
To be absolutely clear, is the Minister saying that notification can be given via any representative and that they do not have to be qualified in a particular way?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
That is certainly my understanding. If the situation is any different, I will let the noble Baroness know.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I think that is quite important, as it matters how these things work in practice. Having said that, and as I indicated, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Davies of Brixton
Member's explanatory statement
This probing amendment, along with that to Clause 9 at page 12 in the name of Lord Davies of Brixton, removes subsections that place responsibilities on a captain of a ship or aircraft, the train manager of a train or a driver of a vehicle that are in addition to those under the existing law.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, those who have been present for the last group will inevitably experience déjà vu, for which I make no apology. The implications of this legislation for the people upon whom obligations are being placed is clearly an important aspect of the Bill. It is not about the principle, where our position has been made clear; it is about the inadequate thought and consideration that has gone into preparing this legislation.
These clauses are a form of conscription—compulsory enlistment for state service, typically but not necessarily into the Armed Forces. Requiring transport workers, going about their normal work, to undertake state service—additional responsibilities mandated by the Government—constitutes a form of conscription. I will not take this too far but, for seafarers, it is effectively a return of the press-gang.
As the Minister alluded to in his remarks on the previous group, for transport workers there are already provisions for this sort of activity in the immigration Acts. People get deported in accordance with the law when they have no right to remain in the country. That raises the question: if it is already happening, why are these additional powers required?
I would argue that there is a highly significant difference between the existing practice and that proposed in the Bill. There is no dispute about that difference. The front of the Bill states that the Minister is
“unable to make a statement that … the provisions of the … Bill are compatible with the Convention rights”.
That is the human rights convention. This makes an enormous difference when we come to the imposition of additional responsibilities on employees. It is clearly a matter of concern to transport workers that they will be required to undertake actions when the Government cannot provide an assurance that, in doing so, they are not impinging on an individual’s human rights.
It therefore behoves the Government to take extra care when preparing such legislation. It is perfectly clear that this care has not been taken. There is a total lack of any assessment of the consequences and a failure to undertake any meaningful consultation with those who will be directly affected by the legislation or even their employers. With these amendments, I am asking the Minister to take the opportunity to review the provisions in this part of the Bill that impact on individual workers before it returns on Report.
I turn to the amendments specifically. They would simply delete those provisions that are of serious concern to rail staff and seafarers—as expressed by their trade union, the RMT—and to employers across the transport industry, where I understand there has been little or no consultation about their practicalities.
Amendment 57B would amend Clause 7 by deleting subsections (12) and (13). Here we have the powers for the Home Secretary to require train “owners”, as the Bill puts it, to “make arrangements” to deport individuals who fall foul of the legislation. It gives immigration officers the power to instruct people employed as train guards, for example, to detain and even restrain someone the Home Secretary is seeking to remove from the UK on passenger rail services. In effect, guards on passenger rail services will be turned into prison guards, acting under the direction of the Home Secretary and not that of their employer.
It is worth reminding the Committee that transport workers are routinely advised not to put themselves in situations of conflict when performing their contractual duties. They signed up to provide a transport service, not to act as untrained and inexperienced prison guards. This approach of lack of confrontation was uppermost in people’s minds around the enforcement of face mask wearing and other aspects of the Government’s Covid-19 response. Why is this situation, which is more extreme, any different? I understand that the RMT has tried to contact, and spoken to, transport Ministers and employers in the industry to seek their support in opposing these provisions.
I turn to seafarers. The captain of a ship will also be subject to these provisions. In practice, that would mean immigration officers directing the ship’s captain, who would then be obliged to instruct the ship’s crew to detain and even restrain people, subject to the Bill’s provision.
When the Immigration Act 1971 and other legislation to which the Minister has referred already contain significant powers to control migration, why are these additional powers required?
Amendment 58A would delete Clause 9(1) and (2). These provisions add rail employees to the list of transport workers subject to fines—criminal penalties—of up to £5,000 under Section 27 of the Immigration Act 1971, in relation to the removal process. This rush to legislate has been undertaken with scant regard to, and certainly no consultation with, workers on their responsibilities, even when they could be prosecuted if someone being transported in accordance with the instructions of the Secretary of State were to “disembark”, as the legislation puts it, or were not removed from the UK. In effect the Government are threatening transport workers, particularly rail and shipping staff and their employers, with criminal sanctions if they fail to impose custodial conditions on people submitting a claim for asylum in the UK. Once again, the Government do not appear to have undertaken any impact assessment of these proposals, particularly what they mean for individuals.
Amendment 71B would delete part of Clause 11(1). There are already significant powers in the Immigration Acts for an immigration officer to instruct the captain of a ship or aircraft to detain a person being removed from the UK if they have not been granted leave to remain or have attempted to enter the UK illegally on a ship or aircraft. But Clause 11(1) significantly amends paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971.
The effect of this provision is that the Secretary of State, rather than the courts, will determine what is a reasonable period to detain an individual for, for the specific statutory purpose. If the Secretary of State does not consider that the examination, decision, removal or directions will be carried out, made or given within a reasonable period, the person may be detained for a further period that is, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, reasonably necessary to enable arrangements to be made for release.
The concern is that the Bill appears to give the Home Secretary much broader powers to require the detention of people on ships and aircraft for long periods of time. This is likely to mainly affect services chartered by the Home Office or the Home Secretary, but clarification is needed on the impact on the ships’ crews, who will potentially be stuck in port for an indeterminate period of time under the instruction of the Home Secretary.
As with the concerns I have raised over the contents of Clauses 7 and 9, the provisions in Clause 11(1) put seafarers and other transport workers in positions of conflict and potential harm at the instruction of the Secretary of State.
Given these concerns, I press the Minister to answer the following questions. First, will transport workers be prosecuted if they do not detain asylum seekers in line with the provisions of the Bill—actions clearly outside their contract of employment?
Secondly, what impact assessment have the Government conducted of these amendments, which bring transport workers and their employers into the scope of the legislation with the threat of criminal sanctions? If they have made an assessment, will they reveal it?
Thirdly, what consultation have the Government conducted with employers across the transport industry regarding these powers? I asked a question in relation to the previous group. I would have pressed the Minister at the time but, since I have this second bite at the cherry, I raise it now: what consultation has taken place? If there has been none, will they swiftly organise some? Will they include the results of such discussion in the fondly awaited impact assessment?
Fourthly, what discussions have the Government had with the devolved Administrations in Wales and Scotland over the effect of these requirements on Transport for Wales, ScotRail and cross-border rail operations?
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, as we can see, there has been an inevitable crossover between this group of amendments and the previous ones, as the noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Balfe, mentioned. I rise in support of this last group of amendments put forward by my noble friend Lord Davies.
For workers, there can be no doubt: it is somewhat disgraceful that Ministers are seeking to make transport workers responsible for detaining and even restraining asylum seekers. The TUC says that this idea shows “total disregard” for these workers’ ethical views and legal obligations. As has been mentioned, the RMT has put this in even starker terms, as did my noble friend Lord Davies a few seconds ago: these proposals will turn train guards into prison guards. Think about those words for a moment; it cannot possibly be right.
Clause 7 risks putting transport workers in situations of conflict, while Clause 9 increases their exposure to criminal sanctions and drags train managers and others into the removal process. This is surely completely unacceptable and unnecessary. The legislation is vindictive and inhumane. It seeks to exploit boat crossings in the channel to stoke resentment against refugees and migrants seeking asylum in this country.
These amendments are probing in nature and designed to draw out the Government’s reasoning behind these appalling proposals. They would protect transport workers from the terrible burden that Ministers seek to place upon them.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register. As noble Lords will know, I frequently get up to speak on the rights of trade unionists. I am also president of a trade union affiliated to the TUC.
The purpose of this discussion is to encourage the Minister to go away and, we hope, say, “Well, they made some good points there. We had better bring forward some amendments. We ought to change same of the provisions of this Bill because it really doesn’t work.” Hence, I am speaking in support of the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Davies.
In Amendment 57B, the noble Lord is seeking to delete the phrase
“the captain of the ship or aircraft, the train manager of the train or the driver of the vehicle must"—
not “can”, “should” or “might consider”, but “must”—
“if so required by an immigration officer or the Secretary of State prevent P from disembarking”.
Immigration officers are also in trade unions. They have a very difficult life. Who is going to decide what they actually order the captain of the aircraft to do? Anyway, if the aircraft is up in the sky and it is suddenly discovered that someone is on board who should not be, what is the captain supposed to do? The captain of the aircraft has two principal jobs: to bring the passengers safely to the destination, and to do the same for the plane. They are not prison warders.
In many cases, of course, if this happened mid-air, they would not have realised the situation when they took off. Those of us who have been around a long, long time and can remember the hostage crises of many years ago will know that the situation became apparent only when aircraft were actually in the air. I am not asking the Minister, “will they be prosecuted?” because the Bill says that they will. I want to know under what circumstances it is envisaged that prosecution will be brought, and by whom it will be brought. Will it be the DPP, the department or the Minister? What will be the aim of the prosecution?
Amendment 58A would delete, amongst other things, the phrase
“knowingly permits a person to disembark in the United Kingdom”.
What is someone in that situation supposed to do? If a train comes into a station, it is very difficult to stop people getting off it. Noble Lords who have travelled to Brussels will be well aware of the number of times it is announced over the Tannoy that “You must not disembark at this station”. If someone does disembark, however, has the driver knowingly permitted them to disembark simply because they have gone into a station? Should they have stopped in the middle of the countryside? I ask the Minister to look at whether there should be an indemnity for transport workers, so that these provisions are not used to prosecute them. If they are, why should any pilot take the risk of flying an aircraft that might have an asylum seeker on it? Rostering is voluntary: you do not queue up and say, “you go there”. That is where the weakness lies—I diverge slightly—in the minimum strikes legislation. You cannot order people to do things, not in a free society; and that is where we live.
I ask the Minister to talk to the transport unions and to his own department about what it is trying to do with this and whether it will actually work. What concerns me about this Bill, as with the minimum strikes legislation, is that we are progressing rapidly towards a fairyland where pass legislation that just will not work. It is not a good thing to do, because it does not breed respect for legislation. I, and many people in Britain, want illegal immigration to stop. There is a general feeling out there in the country, particularly among the trade union members that I deal with, that you should not be able to cheat the system. But you have to make this Bill work to achieve that, rather than just achieving headlines for the Daily Mail, and for us all to look smart. The challenge is to make this work, not to make it look good.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I had not intended to speak on this provision, because when I read the Bill and saw it, I genuinely thought that it must have been a drafting error on the part of civil servants that Ministers had not noticed. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, move his amendment, and to the other noble Lords who have spoken, it seems very sensible to me that this be taken back by the Government before Report. I am amazed that there was no consultation with the trade unions on this issue, which really does affect their members’ livelihoods. If this went through, I can imagine how workers on planes, ships and other forms of transport would react, knowing that it could be used against them.
It right that this Chamber address this issue, being an advisory, revising Chamber that gets things changed that we think are obviously wrong. In addition to what has already been said about consultation, why has this not been discussed properly? As the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, has said, many trade union members believe that the way we deal with illegal immigration has to change, but this is not the way to do it. This bit of the Bill must be taken out. The Minister should accept that there will not be support for it in this House, and that the other place has not, perhaps, thought about this in a sensible way.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton for tabling these amendments, which are supported by the trade union movement and by other noble Lords.
I will put my cards on the table: my personal position is that coercive powers of detention should be in the hands of the state, for a number of reasons. I think Ministers should be directly responsible for the use of coercive power in our democratic society, and those powers should be exercised by properly trained people who enter into a profession to exercise powers such as that. However, that is not everyone’s position. I know that reasonable people, including friends of mine with whom I disagree and some on the Benches opposite, believe, for example, in private prisons. Those are circumstances where there is a contract that a private provider enters into to provide services for detention, coercion and so on. I have problems with that; I will not bore the Committee with my various concerns about it, but I believe that there is an entire Wikipedia page devoted to G4S scandals. I am thinking also of Brook House detention centre and the various people who have died in the context of forced removal from the country. I have concerns about the use of private contractors to exercise some of the most coercive powers of the democratic state.
However, the problem that has been identified by my noble friend Lord Davies and others is even more serious than that, because these are not private guards who have been employed by AN Other private security company—although I am concerned about that, and the scandals speak for themselves—but people who are transport workers. They are used to giving service to the public, which is a very different job with a very different understanding, different training and, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, pointed out, different preoccupations and priorities from the use of coercive force.
On mixed flights, holidaymakers sit alongside deportees. To be fair, that is already a problem; under the regime that we have now, these problems have arisen for some time, but the Bill makes the problem worse. We also have to be realistic that, in the context of the challenges we will face on this planet in the years to come, more and more desperate people will come. The idea of having mixed flights, with transport workers now being responsible for a policy of transportation in addition to normal service provision with the priorities of customer safety, is a total nonsense. If the Government want to pursue the sorts of policy that we are seeing in this legislation, with controversy, coercion and desperate people who may want to fling themselves off the train, the ship or the plane, that is really not appropriate for transport workers. We are now getting into a transportation policy of coercive control and removal, and that really ought to be done by servants of the state, agents of the state, who have been employed for that purpose.
It is not just for the sake of their consciences or for the safety and security of the desperate people themselves—or indeed the terrible people. We keep calling them “illegal migrants” but that is a bone of contention, because of course these people are being removed without consideration of their asylum claims, so we do not know whether they are illegal or not. However, whether they are illegal or are genuine refugees, some of these people will be desperate and will resort to desperate means to escape removal, and the lovely people who I travel with on the trains, when I can, should not be charged with that task; it should be people who are genuine volunteers who have been properly trained, and they should be directly responsible to Ministers when things go wrong, which I am afraid they sometimes will. So the amendments are very well put and I urge the Government to think again.
The Minister will rightly say that this is not novel. I do not want to pretend that it is totally novel to give directions to conventional transport providers and to contract out aspects of immigration control; bit by bit, that has been happening for decades, and it has simply been turbocharged by this policy. However, it is not safe or ethical, and nothing good will come of it.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, my point, which I hope is a helpful one, follows on from what the noble Baroness has said but also from what the Minister said about the need for interpreters; he was talking about Clause 55, but I can see the same thing happening here.
A few months ago in your Lordships’ House we discussed the whole nature of the qualification of interpreters. We came to a conclusion that, sadly, this was often wanting. Justice and democracy are served only if people who have to make a case for themselves are understood, and if they are talking to someone who can put their case cogently. My question to the Minister is: when he talks about interpreters, is he talking about people who will be adequately qualified?
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, as other noble Lords have said, there is an overlap between the last group of amendments and this one. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, for setting out specifically what the issues are here, particularly the additional complications of the potential incompatibility of the Bill with the European Convention on Human Rights, and therefore workers being asked to act in contravention of people’s human rights. There have been instances where whole aeroplanes were chartered and immigration officers have accompanied people who were being removed, but here we are talking potentially about removals in numbers that we have never seen before—if the Government are to be believed.
The Government seem to be asking transport workers, who have not been trained in self-defence, to safely detain people or safely restrain them if they resist. They are not paid to do that sort of work or cope with those sorts of risks. What about employer liability insurance? What happens if a fight develops between a transport worker and one of the people being deported, and the person being deported ends up suing the transport worker? What about indemnity? What indemnity are the Government going to provide to these transport workers, who are effectively being used as agents of the state?
Again, what consultation has taken place with trade unions and transport operators around the feasibility of the proposals contained in the Bill? As the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, pointed out, and as my noble friend Lord German pointed out in the last group, there was the potential for seafarers to be prosecuted under the Nationality and Borders Bill if they attempted to rescue people from drowning in the English Channel, if they believed that they were illegal migrants. Now we are talking about potentially prosecuting transport workers who fail to act as agents of the state in detaining people for removal. How can that possibly be part of what a transport worker signs up for when they take on their role?
As my noble friend Lord German said in the last group, the UK Chamber of Shipping has written to noble Lords. The overall problem with this measure can be summed up when it says:
“We are greatly concerned about these clauses becoming law which could require the ship’s master and crew to detain passengers, something which they are not trained to do, at the direction of the Government”.
As I said on the last group, this whole clause seems to be an act of desperation and something that the Government really need to think about again.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, with apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I will intervene briefly. I very much want to hear what is said by my noble friend Lord Coaker, who will be speaking next. I have only one very simple observation to make. Although I have attended most of the debates on this Bill I have not been able to get into the detail of this, and I certainly did not get into the detail of this problem until my noble friends Lord Davies of Brixton and Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, spoke. It is a very simple proposition: these provisions are just unworkable.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Davies for Amendments 57B and 58A, which I think are very worthy and have signed. They encapsulate the points that I and many noble Lords have made throughout the passage of the Bill so far, and no doubt will in the future, that it is not only issues of principle that concern many of us with respect to this but that many of the provisions are simply unworkable and raise serious questions.
If noble Lords have not done so already, it is worth taking up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and reading Clause 7(12)(a) and (b), which is at the heart of this group of amendments. As the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, pointed out, the captain of a ship or aircraft, the manager of a train or the driver of a vehicle must conform to the directions of an immigration officer to detain an individual and stop them escaping. That is not only if it is reasonable to do so or if it is something you could understand them doing; they must do it—they have no choice. I do not know about some of the lorry drivers the Minister knows, but good luck with that. The serious point was made that the language barrier will be enormous, or at least significant, in many of those instances.
I have some specific questions, and they repeat and reinforce some of the points that have been made. Can the Minister explain how the captain of a ship, a lorry driver or a train manager—that is who we are talking about here—will detain these people? If the immigration officer requires them to detain someone, how are they meant to do that? As my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, ably put it, given that they are not warranted officers and do not have the powers of police officers or other individuals, what force can they use? “Excuse me, please do not get out of my lorry. I have been required by the immigration officers to stop you”—I am not sure that that would work, but let us say it does. But if it does not, and the person tries to get out, what can they do to stop them? I hope the Minister can explain that. The problem is that if they do not stop them, they can be prosecuted. One of the noble Lords who contributed said that it is not that they might be prosecuted but that they will be prosecuted if they do not conform. What happens if they try but the person escapes? Who decides whether they have tried enough—that they have gone to a sufficient extent to prevent the person leaving? Knowing the practicalities of this would be useful.
Clause 7 says “vehicle”, which means a lorry, but does it also mean a car or a campervan? If you are a driver of a car and somebody is in the back, do you have to stop them getting out on the direction of an immigration officer? Is it the same rules for children as for adults? The Minister will say I am nitpicking, but we are in Committee and that is the whole point of Committee. Whether for a lorry driver, train manager or car driver, we need to know whether the Government assume that you can do the same with children and what force is applicable with respect to children vis-à-vis an adult. There are, as I say, a significant number of questions.
The last point I want to make, which was raised by my noble friend Lord Davies, is about the detention period for which someone can force a person to stay in their train, on their aircraft or in their car. What is the reasonable length of time? How does it work? I think the Bill may say a few hours but what happens when that expires? The Secretary of State is then required to say that it can be extended. How does that work? How is the driver informed about that? On the practicalities, the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, made a really interesting point, which again sounds like nitpicking. If you are a train driver or a lorry driver, and you arrive somewhere and are required to stay there for 12 hours or 24 hours, what rights do you have? Are you required to stay there, or can you pass it on to somebody else to take over from you and carry on with that period of detention?
My noble friend Lord Davies and the unions, and others who have supported them, have raised a series of important questions about why the detail is so important and why many of us have questions about not only the principles of the Bill but some of the proposals in it and the workability of them.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, Clause 7 includes requirements for various persons, such as owners and agents of a ship, aircraft, train or vehicle, the captain of a ship or aircraft, the train manager or the driver of a vehicle, to comply with directions for an individual’s removal from the UK. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, has explained in his Amendments 57B, 58A and 71B that he seeks to probe the legal obligations these provisions place on transport operators.
If I may, I will address the point from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about whether this relates to private vehicles. The answer is that it is related to scheduled or chartered services, not individual cars or campervans.
I would like to make it absolutely clear that the Government are not making transport workers or operators undertake immigration functions. Clearly, I am in agreement with much of what we have heard during the debate on this group. That is not something we would want to do. Nor are the provisions in Clause 7 about commandeering vessels or vehicles, as was suggested in the debate on the last group; we can and do make arrangements for removal by scheduled services or chartered services. Nor are these new requirements; they reflect provisions that are already in place in Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 for arranging the removal of persons not subject to the new duty in the Bill but otherwise liable to removal from the UK.
Having placed a person on board a ship, aircraft, train or vehicle for their removal from the UK, it is only reasonable that the Secretary of State or an immigration officer may require the relevant captain, manager or driver to prevent the person disembarking while that vehicle, ship, aircraft or train is still in the UK, and effectively keep that person in their custody until they have reached the destination. Clause 9(2), which is the subject of Amendment 58A, then applies the relevant existing criminal offences in Section 27 of the Immigration Act 1971—which already apply to carriers who fail to act under instructions to remove a person under that Act—to instructions to remove a person under the powers set out in this Bill.
Lord German (LD)
We are discussing the issues raised in the previous group and I accept that the Minister wants to talk about them now. I also accept that there are provisions in existing law. Perhaps the Minister can tell us why, therefore, the Government need to put these provisions into the Bill if there is already legislation that stands by that. The difference that I can perceive is the requisitioning of services, particularly transport services. That may be slightly different from what we had before. If the Minister cannot say exactly why these provisions are needed, because they are already in existing powers, there is no point putting them into the Bill.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The powers in Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act will continue to apply to those being removed who are not subject to the new duty in the Bill but are otherwise liable to removal from the UK. The powers in the Bill will relate to those who fall within the cohort in Clause 2. They provide clarity and certainty by being present in the Bill in this context. It is also clearly right that the 1971 Act powers need to be applied to the Bill, so that is the purpose for their inclusion. I hope that answers the noble Lord’s question.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I hope I conceded earlier that we know that there have been directions issued to captains and others since the 1971 Act; that is not in contention. My concern, given the greater controversy of a forced duty to remove people who have not even had a refugee claim considered, and given the larger numbers that the Government clearly anticipate in relation to this policy, is about some of the detail. The Minister said that we need greater clarity, but that greater clarity will bring greater concern. I personally do not remember all this deeming of legal custody and the criminalisation of transport workers, certainly not in the original 1971 Act. Maybe more of that has happened over the years.
I ask the Minister to go back to the issues of policy and principle, and not just to rely on the precedent of the creep of legislation forcing these duties on transport workers. Whether that creep has happened or not—I can see that it has—some of us are really concerned about where it has gone. He said that this has passed without comment or controversy but that is not the case, is it? Every so often, somebody dies while being removed because of the coercion and force that is necessarily involved. If the people using that force are not prison guards, soldiers or police officers, but just common or garden transport workers, there is a real concern and controversy. I would be very grateful if the Minister would address that as a matter of principle.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am afraid I do not agree with the noble Baroness that there is a substantive difference in the fact that the people being removed under the Bill have had their asylum claims rendered inadmissible, because under the present law categories of people have inadmissible asylum claims and they too are subject to removal. They have been subject to the powers in the pre-existing legislation, so I am afraid I do not accept the premise of her intervention.
I should add that we regularly read of instances where there is disorder on an aircraft or instances where a pilot is obliged to land somewhere; then the doors are opened and the police remove a person from the aircraft. That detention can be as simple as keeping the doors closed until the agents of the law arrive to remove the necessary people, and similarly on trains with electric doors. The effecting of the detention is not going to be overly burdensome on the operators as a result of these provisions.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I am disappointed with the Minister’s response. I acknowledged that there were existing provisions but that the situation in which we now find ourselves is qualitatively different. It was a grave disappointment that there had not been sufficient consultation with those directly affected. There is no doubt that transport workers and transport providers have significant concerns. Even if the Minister is right in what he says, it would clearly have been appropriate to have some discussions, if only to allay those concerns. I am disappointed that he has not given a commitment to give further thought on this area.
I do not know whether it is by chance, but we happen to have the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, who is the Transport Minister, with us now. Perhaps some discussions could be facilitated, because I know that she has had representations on this issue. I will look carefully at what the noble Lord, Lord Murray, has said and consider whether this is an issue to which we will need to return. I withdraw my amendment.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and another in the name of Baroness Lister, would amend the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to create a right of appeal against a decision to refuse an application for support under section 95A of the Act, or to stop support under that same section.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 57C, I will also speak to Amendments 57D to 57G. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for their support. These are very much probing amendments and I apologise that I did not make that clear in their explanatory statements. They are focused on the financial and accommodation support available to those deemed inadmissible but still resident in the UK, and on associated appeal rights.
I am grateful to the Refugee Council for its help with these amendments. Because they refer to existing legislation, the amendments are quite complex and, given their probing nature, I do not therefore intend to go into the details of what they would achieve. I am sure that will be a great relief to those who want to get to their dinner. Instead, I will explain the context of the amendments and then set out a list of questions for the Minister.
Despite the Government’s intention to deport large numbers of asylum seekers swiftly, the consensus outside government is that, in the absence of adequate third-country agreements, many of those deemed inadmissible will also be unmovable in reality as they cannot be returned to their country of origin, given that their asylum claims have not been assessed. This, according to the very helpful joint briefing we received from a large number of civil society organisations,
“will create a large and permanent population of people who will live in limbo at public expense for the rest of their lives, without any hope of securing lawful status”.
The Refugee Council, Refugee Action, Praxis and the No Accommodation Network describe it as “permanent purgatory”.
In the continued absence of the official impact assessment, the Refugee Council’s assessment estimates that by the end of the three years following the provisions coming into effect, between 161,000 and nearly 192,700 people will be living in this purgatory. They will not have the right to work—the subject of a later amendment —and will not be eligible for mainstream benefits or housing, and thus will be at great risk of exploitation and destitution.
Refugees and people seeking asylum in the UK are already at serious risk of exploitation. British Red Cross and UNHCR research found that people refused asylum face a particular risk of exploitation, as they have few support options. The research found evidence of people experiencing destitution, homelessness and various forms of exploitation, including sexual exploitation. The BRC warns that the number of people experiencing destitution and exploitation will increase if the Bill is implemented and if people deemed inadmissible to the UK asylum system are denied access to support.
According to the joint civil society briefing:
“The physical and mental health implications of this would be unprecedented”.
Health organisations have repeated this warning and the Royal College of Psychiatrists has underlined the serious harm to mental health that living in immigration limbo is likely to cause. The BRC reports, on the basis of its experience with those already deemed inadmissible, that living in limbo without adequate support has devastating impacts on people’s mental and physical health.
It is therefore crucial that we are clear as to what financial and accommodation support will be available to those living in limbo. Key here is what access they will have to Section 4, Section 95 or Section 98 support under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. I have a number of questions for the Minister that refugee organisations have not been able to get the answers to.
First, Section 4 of the 1999 Act is mostly used for supporting those who are destitute, having had their asylum claim refused, and where there is a barrier to them returning home. It can be provided only for accommodation and financial support combined, not for financial support alone. The guidance and regulations mostly reflect these circumstances. Is the Minister confident that the existing regulations for Section 4 will cover the circumstances of someone waiting for removal having had their asylum claim deemed inadmissible under the Bill, given that, for support purposes, they will be treated as failed asylum seekers?
Secondly, looking at the ASF1 that people need to fill in to apply for Section 4 support, it is not clear how someone would use it to apply for support when their claim has been deemed inadmissible. Given that the Bill could be in force this summer if the Prime Minister gets his wish, what plans does the Home Office have for updating the form?
Thirdly, as a result of the Bill it is likely that many more people will be reliant on Section 4 for accommodation and financial support. Currently, most asylum seekers are supported under Section 95, which is available to those awaiting a decision on their claim and facing destitution. Section 98 allows people who would otherwise be destitute to be supported pending a decision on their eligibility for Section 95 support. I said that this was a bit complicated, and I apologise. The equivalent does not exist for Section 4, which will become the main means of support. Are Ministers preparing to use the regulation-making power in Section 4 to create such a scheme? If not, what is proposed?
Finally, can the Minister clarify whether they intend to use the provision within the Immigration Act 2016 to repeal Section 4 and introduce a new Section 95A as a replacement? If the Home Office intends to make that change, when does it intend to implement the 2016 Act changes, and will there be consultation on the relevant regulations and guidance that will need to be put in place? Unlike Section 4 and Section 95, Section 95A decisions would not attract a right to appeal. Given that circumstances are now very different from when Parliament passed the 2016 Act and that it will be a completely untested system, will the Home Office accept an amendment that would create the ability to appeal a refusal or discontinuation of support?
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I refer to the register of interests and my involvement with the RAMP project and Reset.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for tabling Amendments 57C to 57G to provide us with the opportunity to discuss issues relating to the level of support that will be provided for those declared inadmissible but who are unable to be removed from the country. I too am highly grateful to the Refugee Council for supporting us to probe this area of policy well, especially in the absence of an impact assessment.
Before I outline questions for the Minister, it is important to note that those deemed inadmissible will include not just those whose asylum cases would likely have been found valid but individuals who would not have qualified. In the absence of any return deals, this could leave the Government in the absurd position of needing to support at public expense those who could be appropriately returned to their own country.
The Government will also need to support those excluded from the asylum system, who of course could support themselves and their families through employment after gaining refugee status. Let us remember again that more than three-quarters of asylum cases assessed last year were found to be valid. Support will need to be indefinitely provided to these families, and every year this group will increase in number. I hope that these amendments, while raising technical issues, will also help us to understand the rationale behind this and the costs associated with this approach.
My noble friend excellently laid out the grave mental health impacts of being confined to a life of permanent precarity and inescapable destitution. I remarked at Second Reading that this amounts to the continuation of detention simply without walls. It is therefore vital to understand what level of financial and accommodation support will be provided to those living in this state-sanctioned situation. I will try to add complementary questions to those already posed, but there will inevitably be some overlap.
Currently, far more people are supported under Section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 than under Section 4. According to Home Office statistics, in the first quarter of this year, there were 11,662 applications for Section 95 support, compared with 642 under Section 4. The Bill before us will change that, as those people whose claims are declared inadmissible will, in most cases, not be eligible for Section 95 support and instead will need to rely on Section 4 to avoid destitution.
I will ask the Minister some questions. First, how will someone who is, in effect, banned from claiming asylum be able to apply for Section 4 support? It is not clear, as the current guidance for Section 4 states that those deemed inadmissible cannot apply on the grounds that there is no viable route of return to their own country as they are due to be removed to a third country. Individuals will also not be able to judicially review the inadmissibility decision and cannot demonstrate that they are taking reasonable steps to leave the UK, given that their country of origin may be unsafe, and they will not have permission to enter another jurisdiction. How will applications from those with inadmissible asylum claims therefore be treated when they apply for support?
Secondly, what will happen to those who have arrived since 7 March and are currently in receipt of Section 95 support—a number already in the several thousands? Will their asylum claims be immediately declared inadmissible, removing eligibility to Section 95 support in one fell swoop? Can the Minister clarify what assistance this group will be given to apply for Section 4 support, or will he commit to automatically transferring people to Section 4 support without requiring a further application? Finally, what assessment has the Home Office made of how many people will be supported under Section 4 in the months and years after the Bill has come into effect? I stress that, to support the effective scrutiny of the Bill, we must know how many families with children will be left solely reliant on Section 4 support.
This set of amendments highlights major questions which remain unanswered about how the Bill is intended to work in practice, beyond the mantra that people will be “swiftly detained and removed”. These are not needlessly prosaic questions to frustrate the passage of the Bill, but a genuine attempt to help those on the front line plan their operational response, which we heard the Minister say earlier was well under way in its planning.
As the Government know, the asylum support system plays a vital role in ensuring that those who would otherwise be homeless and destitute, and who are unable to work and support themselves, have access to basic accommodation and financial support. There is a debate to be had about what form that accommodation should take and how much the financial support should be, but that debate is meaningless if the system is inaccessible. If the system is not adapted to respond to the circumstances created by the Bill, tens of thousands of people could find themselves with no support. On top of the intolerable consequences that this will have for individuals and families, it will inevitably lead to local authorities, faith groups, communities and voluntary groups picking up the pieces.
We often find ourselves in moments of our lives needing to console ourselves and our loved ones that this stage is only temporary and that hope remains. I am constantly in awe of refugees who live with such instability but retain that sense of a brighter future. It is therefore only right that I close my comments by stating the obvious: there is a different way, where asylum seekers have their applications processed in an effective and timely manner so that hope, not desolation, remains a possibility.
This is my week for making apologies. I have to be in Durham very early tomorrow and trains up north are limited, so after dinner break business I will not be able to contribute on those things that I said I would. However, I expect my good friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark to be present and to speak, in his name, on those matters.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak after the right reverend Prelate. I make no apologies for supporting this group of amendments and I signed the stand part proposition to probe these issues, because they are of such great importance. I also make no apology for using the word “assessment” very frequently in what I am about to say. The Minister will gather that what I am after is some of the contents of the promised impact assessment before it eventually appears.
Clearly, the essence of the clause is to ensure that people get some support for accommodation and subsistence while they are in this world of being inadmissible but have not yet been removed from the country. The starting point here is: how many people are there likely to be in this situation? I have previously asked the Minister whether he thinks that people who are covered by the duty to remove will actually be removed quickly. In other words, will it be in six or nine months? An estimate will do. That is my first question, because it will give us a sense of the size of the problem that we are about to face. We would then be able to identify and understand how many people would therefore require accommodation and subsistence under Section 4.
In the absence of a government impact assessment as yet, the Refugee Council has done its own analysis. Based on the current 0.7% success rate of removing people under the inadmissibility rules, it has assessed that, by the end of the third year after the Bill has passed,
“between 161,147 and 192,670 people will have had their asylum claims deemed inadmissible but not have been removed”.
So that could be the size of the problem. We do not know what the Government think, because they will say that they do not recognise those figures. However, as the Government have not given us any figures, we have no means of judging that.
That group of people will then be without permission to work and will be reliant on Home Office support and accommodation indefinitely. If you look at the size of that cohort and the amount of money that it will cost, you see that it will be between £4.9 billion and £5.7 billion in the first three years. That is based on the assumption that everyone deemed inadmissible would be awarded Section 4 support and that there would be few people who would not get it. The issue arises that, if you do not get it, you will be destitute. As the right reverend Prelate said, the destitute can get picked up by the voluntary sector. But, frequently, local government is picking up the pieces, using funds which are due for other things that should be going on in local authorities, so that they do not have families in absolute destitution on their doorstep.
On the assessment process—just to help the noble Lord—has there been an assessment of the numbers of those who will not qualify for Section 4 support? In other words, is there an estimate of how many would be left with no recourse to public funds and would become destitute? On the suspensive claims, will people who have made a suspensive claim be eligible to apply for Section 4 support? That is probably an easy one for the Minister to answer.
Has there been an assessment of the impact of this legislation on local government funding? Clearly, it would be useful for the Government to understand how much they are currently spending on picking up the pieces of those who are destitute, and how much that would cost if it were magnified by the numbers we have just been talking about. That is why there needs to be a risk assessment for those on no recourse to public funds indefinitely in terms of their vulnerability to exploitation and trafficking. Having no money and accommodation are the sorts of things which fuel the operation of criminal gangs in the United Kingdom.
Animal Welfare
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, the Statement we are debating today starts with a list of government achievements on animal welfare. Of course, we always welcome any positive progress on animal welfare measures, but the problem is that that is not really the point of this Statement or why it has been made. What it is actually doing is scrapping the kept animals Bill—legislation designed to protect pets, livestock and wild animals. I point out that we have had to wait until today to debate this, as the announcement was made on the afternoon of 25 May, the last day before recess.
The Bill was first introduced two years ago and was announced again in the Queen’s Speech last year. It would have delivered on a number of Conservative 2019 manifesto animal welfare commitments, including ending the export of live animals for fattening and slaughter, tackling puppy smuggling and banning the keeping of primates as pets. One animal charity has accused Ministers of “an astonishing betrayal”, yet the Statement has the gall to say that this Conservative Government
“have done more than any other party on animal welfare, delivering on”
the manifesto. So, let us remind ourselves about the issue of delivering, because aside from this Bill, the animals abroad Bill was also scrapped. Although I am sure the Minister will say that we have Private Members’ Bills coming to this House, some containing what was in that ill-fated Bill, can he explain why the promises to ban fur and foie gras imports have bitten the dust?
If animal welfare promises are included in a manifesto, they should be delivered. There should not be a pick-and-mix approach by the Secretary of State or Prime Minister of the day as to which proposals are the least likely to upset Tory Back-Benchers. Saying that taking forward the measures in the kept animals Bill individually is the surest and quickest way is an extraordinary statement, when we consider just how long they have been languishing in the Commons. If the Government had been serious about passing this legislation quickly, they could have done so more than a year ago. I have lost count of the number of times that I have asked the Minister and other Ministers about the Government’s commitment to the Bill and when we would see it make progress. I was always strongly reassured, and I genuinely do not blame the Minister for that, but again it is deeply disappointing.
So, what reassurance can the Minister provide that every part of the Bill—I repeat: every part—will make it through this process, with government support, by the end of this Parliament? Can he provide a proposed timetable? Can he guarantee that no part of it will meet the same fate as the promised bans on fur and foie gras imports? Does he agree with Conservative Members in the other place? Conservative MP Tracey Crouch said it was “better than having nothing”, but added that there had been
“an unforgivable delay on the whole bill, which is completely unacceptable”.
Conservative MP Theresa Villiers said she felt
“a sense of frustration and disappointment”.
The Minister will know that I feel strongly that the Government have once again let down those who believe in progress on animal welfare. More than this, the reasons given for dropping the legislation are simply outrageous. To attempt to blame the Labour Party for a Conservative Government’s decision to drop legislation that had strong cross-party support, with no evidence whatever that
“Labour is clearly determined to play political games”,—[Official Report, Commons, 25/5/23; cols. 495-98.]
is an utterly feeble excuse.
I know that the Minister is personally committed to improving animal welfare standards, so I end by saying that it is a shame that he is not in charge, as I believe he would have more backbone on this issue than some of his colleagues in the other place. I look to him to ensure that progress is made.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the chance to comment on this Statement. The Government have been active on the animal welfare front and I commend their Action Plan for Animal Welfare. I have some questions for the Minister on progress on several fronts on this plan.
I was delighted when the Ivory Act was passed and disappointed that it took so long to implement. I am pleased that the measures in the Act are now extended to cover hippo, narwhal, killer and sperm whales and the walrus, all endangered species.
The animal health and welfare pathway covers farm animal welfare through welfare reviews with a vet of choice. We debated earlier this week the shortage of vets to conduct all the necessary government work. At that time, the Minister detailed the steps being taken to address the vet shortage. Is the Minister able to say whether there are particular geographical hotspots of vet shortage, or is the shortage spread across the country as a whole?
The Statement mentions the new Animal Sentience Committee, the creation of which was not universally welcomed in the other place or in this House. As the committee begins its work next month, is the Minister able to say whether it will be looking at forthcoming legislation across all departments of government, as originally intended, or will it be confined solely to Defra?
I understand the Government’s reasons for not pursuing the kept animals Bill, but I am, nevertheless, disappointed and concerned about certain aspects which the Bill would have covered. The Government appear to be relying quite heavily on Private Members’ Bills to implement strands of their manifesto. As we know, Private Members’ Bills often take a while to complete their passage and are some of the first to fall if there is pressure on official government business.
While I fully support the ban on trading in detached shark fins and banning the sale of glue traps, I am less enthusiastic about the ban on importing hunting trophies. While I think the hunting of large exotic animals for trophies is a revolting practice, there is another side to this. The hamlets and villages which live alongside these wild animals find it hard to make a living out of farming the land, which is often destroyed by marauding game. The expansion of their farming practices into the areas previously inhabited by wild game brings them into conflict with the animals. Villagers are dependent, in some areas, on the exploits of big game hunters for their income. Would not a better system, to prevent the destruction of certain species, be to introduce a quota system, such as used to exist in the USA? There, a hunter could have a licence once every five years to kill a single bear. When his turn came up, he had the year in which to be successful. If he was not, then his licence lapsed, and he had to wait another five years. I readily admit that I do not know if this system still exists in the US, but it did some years ago. I also accept that my comments will not be welcome to those taking part in the debate next Friday on this important issue, and I am not able to be present on Friday but feel both sides of the argument should be heard.
The Government have done much to prevent the export of live animals for fattening and slaughter since 2020, but this is a temporary measure. Can the Minister say when the UK legislation will become permanent and what, if any, barriers there are to this happening soon? There have been several statutory instruments concerning puppy smuggling and banning the importation of mutilated dogs. The Statement indicates that, instead of this being covered by the kept animals Bill and statutory instruments, this will be in a single-issue Bill. Can the Minister say when this might be brought forward—if not in this Session, then presumably in the next?
During the Covid lockdown, we saw a rise in pet ownership, which was coupled with a rise in pet abduction, possibly driven by the rise in the cost of acquiring a puppy or kitten. The Government are seeking, as they put it, to progress
“delivery of the new offence of pet abduction and new measures to tackle livestock worrying”.
I fully support this, but I wonder whether this will be through government legislation or another Private Member’s Bill—can the Minister comment?
Lastly, I want to turn to the issue of keeping primates as pets. This was to have been, for me anyway, a key element of the kept animals Bill. The Government are due to consult over the Summer Recess on the issue of standards for keeping these highly intelligent animals as pets. This gives the impression that it will be acceptable to keep primates as pets. The Statement also refers to secondary legislation as the vehicle for introducing this. If this is the case, which Act will the relevant SI sit under? I am opposed to the keeping of primates as pets and hope the Government will ban this instead of regulating it.
I congratulate the Government on the action they have taken, and intend to take in the future, on animal welfare, and fully support their actions. However, I feel a sense of disappointment that the kept animals Bill will not be the vehicle for achieving further improvement.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions made by both Front-Bench spokesmen. We are a nation of animal lovers and that unites us across this House. Animal welfare has been a priority for this Government, and I say to the noble Baroness that she would be hard pushed to find any Government that have done more for animal welfare than we have. On farms, we have introduced new regulations for minimum standards for meat chickens. We have banned the use of conventional battery cages for laying hens. We made CCTV mandatory in slaughterhouses in England. For pets, microchipping became mandatory for dogs in 2015 and, as she is aware, we have just passed this measure for cats. We modernised our licensing system for activities such as dog breeding and pet sales. We have protected service animals via Finn’s law. We banned the commercial third-party sales of puppies and kittens. In 2019, our Wild Animals in Circuses Act became law, and we have led the world to implement humane trapping standards by banning glue traps. Some of these measures were Private Members’ Bills, but we worked with people in both Houses to make sure that these happened.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, mentioned, the animal health and welfare pathway is seeing a real step up in the relationship between vets and farms, and the support we can give to farmers in this important priority for improving animal welfare standards. We had the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act and the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act. Last month, we made cat-microchipping compulsory and, as the noble Baroness pointed out, we brought the Ivory Act into force last year, but we have extended it to cover five other species also.
The noble Baroness is being a bit harsh when she looks at the issue in the round because we have had a lot of success with single-issue animal welfare matters, and we are still committed to the measures in the Bill. With regards to the example raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, about the ban on keeping primates as pets, this will be on the statute book before it would have been if we had taken this through as a multi-issue Bill, because we are able to do this through a statutory instrument. I cannot remember the piece of legislation that this will amend or add to, but it will be on the statute book.
We remain committed to banning the export of animals for slaughter and fattening. Noble Lords may be interested to know the number of animals that have been exported since we left the European Union is zero. It is an activity that, through economic circumstances and the availability of the necessary infrastructure, is just not happening, but that never stops the Government being determined to do this.
We have the trophy hunting Bill coming forward; I suggest that is when we will tease out some of the legitimate issues raised by the noble Baroness. On shark fins, we will support the ban. The low welfare issues abroad are certainly matters we can take forward.
On the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, around foie gras, we are keeping to our manifesto commitment. We are looking at the measures that would be required to legislate. We have committed to building a clear evidence base to inform decisions on banning the import and sale of foie gras; we have been collecting evidence on the sector and will continue options in due course. We are committed to taking an evidence-based approach towards exploring potential action on fur. We have already held a call for evidence and are continuing to explore possible outcomes.
When the noble Baroness looks at every part of the Bill, she will see that nearly all of it will have the necessary parliamentary time. We may be able to find an alternative place to bring in other areas such as zoo standards, but there is more evidence to collect on that. I am working very closely with the Zoos Expert Committee to make sure that we are doing that.
In reply to the noble Baroness’s point about vets— I am sure this will be raised by others in this House quite shortly—there is a shortage of vets, certainly in government and the APHA. We are treating this situation very seriously and seeking to address it, and we are working with people such as the noble Lord, Lord Trees, to make sure that the new vet schools which have opened in recent years, which are extremely welcome, are training more vets who will remain in the United Kingdom and service us. There is a particular shortage of large animal vets, and we are working with the royal colleges to make sure that we are finding new ways to encourage people to go into that sector and looking at why there is a disinclination for certain people to go into that area.
I have already covered the point about primates as pets. As for the six measures in the manifesto, we will ban live exports, as I have said, and there will be measures on puppy smuggling and primates as pets. Livestock worrying and pet abduction were not in the manifesto, but we are doing work on those issues. I hope also to be able to do something on zoo licensing. In addition to the manifesto, we have supported the glue traps Act, which passed through your Lordships’ House. We brought in extra penalty notices and extra measures for animal cruelty, and increasing the penalties for hare-coursing has been extremely popular with people—as well as with hares. The people carrying out that activity— I speak with some experience on this matter—are not pleasant when they are confronted.
I hope I am able to convince both Front Benches that the kept animals Bill was designed to implement several of our ambitions, including manifesto commitments on banning the live export of animals, cracking down on puppy smuggling and banning the keeping of primates as pets. Its multi-issue nature means that there has been considerable scope-creep. The Bill risks being extended far beyond the original commitments in the manifesto and the action plan. The Bills and regulations that we have passed already demonstrate the enormous progress that can be made with single-issue legislation. Therefore, we have announced that we will take forward measures in the kept animals Bill individually during the remainder of this Parliament. We remain fully committed to delivering our manifesto commitments, and this approach is now the surest and quickest way of doing so.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Before the noble Lord sits down, if he is concerned about the widening of scope, perhaps he should suggest that the levelling up Bill is scrapped.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I will definitely feed that very important piece of information through to my colleagues in other departments.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare. I congratulate the Government on the animal welfare measures to date that have been listed in the Oral Statement of 25 May. I regret the withdrawal of the kept animals Bill but I note that there is a commitment in the Statement to introduce most of its measures. I will disappoint the Minister, because I am not going to mention the shortage of vets—he is very well aware of it, as he has demonstrated. I will confine my comments and questions to the measures derived from the kept animals Bill that are present and committed to, or indeed absent.
First, I note that the Government have committed to banning primates as pets, conducting a consultation before the summer and putting forward secondary legislation this year. That is all very welcome. It is estimated that something like 1,000 to 7,000 primates are kept as pets in the UK. It is very difficult to get accurate figures. There is no doubt that primates have very complex welfare needs which generally would not be provided for in a domestic environment. The kept animals Bill proposed licensing. I am interested to hear from the Minister, notwithstanding the outcome of the consultation, whether it is likely that the Government will introduce a total ban—the word “banning” is used without conditions in the Statement—or whether they are still committed to licensing.
I note that there is a commitment to progressing new measures on livestock worrying. I would be interested to know a little more about what that might involve. Livestock worrying is a huge and growing issue. APGAW has been very concerned about it for a number of years since it published a report on the subject in 2018. A survey this year by the National Sheep Association found that 70% of its respondents had suffered at least one sheep worrying incident in the last 12 months. There are multiple instances of animals on farms either being killed outright or mortally wounded and requiring euthanasia in the last year or two. We strongly support more stringent measures against this increasing crime. I would like to hear a little more about what is envisaged.
With regard to the export of live animals for fattening and slaughter, the kept animals Bill included horses and other equine animals, along with cattle, sheep, pigs and so on. Are horses going to be included in the new measures? I raise this because there are welfare benefits of being able to slaughter horses in abattoirs, but there is only one in England that regularly takes horses. This shortage of equine abattoirs in the south of England in particular may mean that export for slaughter is a positive welfare issue if suitable abattoirs exist close to the ports across the channel—otherwise horses risk being abandoned and having a much more chronic welfare problem.
The importation of dogs in particular, as well as cats and ferrets, is another growing problem. There is a vast amount of criminally conducted smuggling and a gross abuse of the pet travel scheme. I note that the Statement suggests a ban on imports of young dogs—although it does not specify what age—heavily pregnant dogs or mutilated dogs via a single-issue Bill. All this will be extremely welcome.
As I have mentioned, puppy smuggling is occurring on an industrial scale, incentivised by the huge profits that can be made. There is very little chance of prosecutions occurring, and the sanctions are currently quite low. To give your Lordships an example of the profitability, one transporter has been estimated to traffic 6,200 puppies a year, worth an estimated £11.7 million. To bring even more dogs in, we are seeing smugglers bringing in pregnant bitches which will quite shortly produce in the UK more than one pup.
Finally, the illegal trade we are seeing is threatening the biosecurity of the UK dog population. The most recent and perhaps most serious threat has been the increasing incidence of Brucella canis infections in dogs. This is not only a serious infection in dogs but a public health hazard. In dogs, it is essentially untreatable, and the only recommended intervention is euthanasia.
Therefore, stronger enforcement is needed to get to grips with this issue, and I urge that the new measures contemplated bear that in mind. Perhaps we could use modern technology—camera imaging and so on—to detect dogs in vehicles, perhaps also using AI to read the camera results. We really need to scan every vehicle coming in if it is too impractical to make visual checks.
Nothing on zoos is mentioned in the Statement— I would be interested to hear from the Minister why they are excluded. Finally, we welcome the offence of pet abduction being used, which would recognise the emotional cost to owners of pet theft. I would welcome the Minister’s comments and answers to those questions.
Lord Benyon (Con)
It just so happened that while I was sitting here I received inspiration, so I am able to answer the noble Baroness’s question. The statutory instrument on keeping primates as pets will see an amendment to the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which the noble Lord, Lord Trees, mentioned. We are consulting, as is required, on the standards that we would apply, which would limit the vast majority of the cases that the noble Lord talked about, where primates are kept in improper surroundings and in improper conditions in houses. As I say, this will happen quicker than would have happened if we were taking this through as a massive piece of legislation, as originally intended.
On livestock worrying, this measure will require primary legislation, so we will consider options for legislative vehicles to take this forward. In the meantime, we will continue to work closely with the Countryside Code, which we amended recently, on ensuring messaging around keeping dogs on leads around livestock. That should remain a priority. However, as the noble Lord will know, 70% of livestock worrying cases occur when a dog is not being managed or is not with its owner—it has escaped. We should not just be working on livestock. I do not know how we legislate on this, but on “Springwatch” last year there was a very good piece about a very rare redshank’s nest that was predated on by a dog. The law is not always the best way of encouraging responsible ownership. However, it should be totally unacceptable that our rarest wildlife is being predated in this way and that livestock continues to be attacked by dogs not under control.
On the export issue, I had not considered the point the noble Lord raised about horses, but he makes a very interesting point and I will take that back to the department. There is a positive animal welfare issue there. Only one vessel works out of Folkestone that is able to transport livestock. I am not sure whether it transports horses, but I will keep in touch with the noble Lord and work with him on that.
The mutilation of puppies and puppy smuggling are revolting crimes. This is a manifesto commitment that we know has a huge amount of support among parliamentarians on all sides of the House. A single-issue Bill could give us the opportunity to put in it additional measures: for example, bans on the import of young puppies, heavily pregnant dogs and those with mutilations such as cropped ears and docked tails. Those would have been implemented through secondary legislation, which would have taken time. Under this new approach, we can bring these measures forward at the same time, which could be effective and quicker.
On dogs, cats and ferrets being imported, the measure we are bringing will allow a maximum of five per vehicle rather than five per person, which is one of the abuses we are seeing, and we are banning the imports of mutilated animals over six months old and heavily pregnant ones. We think this can be delivered through secondary legislation.
On biosecurity, the noble Lord is absolutely preaching to the choir. The horrendous example I can give is the import of animals from Afghanistan, which we were told had all been checked by a vet. However, it turned out that there were cases of Brucella canis and Leishmaniasis among them. That is a horrendous threat and risk to the domestic dog population, and we have to be absolutely clear that we are dealing with this and doing so in the best form possible as regards biosecurity.
On the Zoo Licensing Act reforms, we enjoy a close working relationship with the zoo sector and will continue to capitalise on that to identify non-legislative ways of reforming it. By the end of the year we will publish updated zoo standards, which we have developed in collaboration with the zoo sector and the UK Zoos Expert Committee to raise standards and make enforcement more effective.
On the noble Lord’s last point about pet abduction, I ran a campaign on that in my constituency when I was in the other place, when dog theft became a particular crime and, to be perfectly frank, it was not being taken seriously by the authorities. It is a vile crime because for many people the loss of their dog is much more troubling than the loss of many other possessions they have; it can have an absolutely devastating effect on the owner, and we want to make sure that criminals face the toughest sanctions possible.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his remarks so far. I join other noble Lords in expressing a level of disappointment at the Statement made in another House. I think the Minister himself mentioned the oft-used phrase that we are a nation of animal lovers. That is generally the case; it transcends party politics and people of a wide range of affiliations would certainly support that. However, it is fine to talk the talk but we need to walk the walk. In animal welfare, that means ensuring that we have the most robust and progressive legislation that we can on animal welfare. Equally important, as the noble Lord, Lord Trees, identified, is implementation and enforcement. In my experience, without that, the best legislation in the world, particularly on animal welfare, can at times be meaningless.
I do not want to try to score political points on this and, to be fair, on a lot of aspects of animal welfare the Government have been genuinely progressive. I know that not everyone in this House would apply that adjective to the Government in all circumstances, but they can be proud of a lot of their past record and even of some legislation going through at the moment.
I will add one caveat to that and seek a response from the Minister. It is important that current legislation is fully applicable and robust across all the United Kingdom. I express in particular a concern about the trophy-hunting legislation, which, I understand from the other place, does not at this stage appear to apply to Northern Ireland. The reason given was a concern that this might breach the provisions with regard to the single market. With regard to the European situation, a number of countries such as the Netherlands have already brought in these bans, so if the Government have not changed their position on this, it is important that Northern Ireland is included, so I seek an assurance from the Minister that it is at least being looked at.
On this legislation, the ideal position would certainly have been for the Kept Animals Bill to have continued its pathway. It is the gold standard to which I think many in this House would aspire. In addition, having praised the Government, I felt that one thing in the Statement was a little disingenuous. I am not here as a spokesman for His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, but to try to pin the blame on the Labour Party was deeply unfair. What was passing through was the will of the House of Commons, and this is not a situation in which we have a minority Government dependent on a loose coalition of additional support; this Government have quite a large majority in the Commons. Therefore, if the Government have, for whatever reason, decided to do a U-turn or abandon this, or they feel that there are practical reasons why this cannot move ahead in this format, simply to try to deflect from that by scoring political points and passing it on to the Opposition is in this case unfair.
Having said that the gold standard was the reinstatement of the Bill, I think the next best position, as outlined by the noble Baroness on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, is a government commitment that every aspect of the Bill will be put in place. At the very least, what we need from the Government is a level of certainty as to what the next steps are. There is a slight danger that we could be like groupies at a music concert: we very much appreciate the back catalogue, but we really want to know what the new material on the next album will be. To that extent, if the Minister cannot give us an assurance tonight that within the lifetime of this Parliament every aspect of the kept animals Bill will be committed to and put into effect—if this is to be taken forward in individual, smaller steps—at the very least the Government have to outline which elements of this they are prioritising; the timetable for each of those elements, and a firm commitment on that; and whether there are aspects of the Bill which can be brought forward without the need for legislation, via another route. I think we need clarity, not just for this House but for the many animal lovers throughout this country—and, indeed, for their animals—to see the levels of protection they are going to be provided with. Let us ensure that we do not just speak of a nation of animal lovers as a cliché but deliver on that. So I want to know from the Government what the next steps are going to be.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his very balanced position on this. To use his analogy, I think this Government are the Taylor Swift of this, because our new material is every bit as good as our back catalogue. As for being progressive, I have always regretted that that word has been poached by parties of the left, because the opposite of progressive is regressive and that is far from what we are. So I am very happy that our approach to animal welfare is considered progressive. We work with the changing values of the population, who demand ever higher standards of animal welfare. Some of these matters are bitterly contested, because there are views in both directions. Nevertheless, we are not afraid to debate them, and we will have plenty of opportunities to do so in the future.
On the noble Lord’s point about Northern Ireland and whether or not the trophy hunting Bill should be included, it is of course a devolved issue. Many different animal welfare issues are debated in our devolved legislatures. The Welsh Government have taken steps to ban electric collars for training animals—a measure we are also taking. They have done it in a different way; we think we are doing it in a more proportionate way.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
In relation to it being a devolved matter, there have been a number of occasions—as we saw recently with organ donation—when the Government have intervened on issues with regard to Northern Ireland which would be considered devolved. But the rationale given in the other place for not including Northern Ireland was in the European context rather than it being a devolved issue.
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Lord’s point is absolutely taken. I completely understand it.
I finish by saying that these are, of course, matters where you can see the glass as half-full or half-empty. I think this is a glass that is nearly full, because we are wanting to take these matters forward. We mind desperately that we have good animal welfare policies and laws in place, and we will continue to work towards that.
Illegal Migration Bill
Wednesday 7th June 2023
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Illegal Migration Act 2023 View all Illegal Migration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 133-III(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (6 Jun 2023)
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I had got as far as “My L—” when I was interrupted. I am sorry, I do not mean “interrupted”: I mean when we heard the Motion that the House be resumed. It was not going to be a major speech—it still is not, although I could have spent the last half-hour working on it.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who dealt with the issues very comprehensively, and the Refugee Council, which has been so helpful in briefing us. I simply observe the irony of our debating state support in the context of state-inflicted detention.
Lord German (LD)
I apologise to the Committee for speaking twice, but of course this is Committee so I can do it again.
To reiterate some of the issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, raised, this is an issue which you need to understand if you are to propose and manage this policy and move it further forward. “What happens next?” is not just a big question, it is of crucial importance to people and people’s lives. I will not repeat my statements about assessments, which are well made and obviously made all the time, but we have heard an exposition of this issue, which needs to be resolved. We need answers to those questions.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Lister for introducing this group of amendments, which concern the duty to remove those who are not detained, and their access to support because they would be otherwise destitute.
Clause 8 amends relevant legislation to provide support on the same basis as for those whose claims are declared inadmissible under Section 80A or 80B of the 2002 Act. My noble friend introduced her amendments in great detail. They would allow for appeals to be made on decisions around support. They would allow financial support to be provided where accommodation support is not needed. They would allow people awaiting decisions on accommodation support to be provided with interim accommodation. They make it clearer that if someone has not yet been removed from the UK, despite the duty from the Secretary of State to do so, they face a genuine obstacle. As my noble friend said, the Government must ensure that no one awaiting deportation faces destitution and danger.
Given the questions about the Government’s ability to actually remove people given the lack of returns agreements, what assessment have the Government made of the support that will be needed? We read in the newspapers that the Government are renting two more barges. Of course, the numbers the barges can accommodate will not touch the sides of the amount of accommodation that will be needed.
My noble friend Lady Lister and the noble Lord, Lord German, asked a number of detailed questions, as did the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, who I suspect is getting his train as we speak. As the right reverend Prelate said, in practice it will be local authorities, faith groups and voluntary organisations which will be picking up the pieces if there is not adequate government support for people who find themselves in this position. I will listen to the Minister’s response with interest.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
My Lords, Clause 8 ensures that there is support available to individuals who would otherwise be destitute where their asylum claims have been declared inadmissible, pending their removal from the United Kingdom. It also seeks to incentivise those whose asylum claims have been declared inadmissible to comply with the arrangements to remove them from the UK, whether that be to their country of origin—where it is safe to do so—or to a safe third country. These provisions will support the overall objective of the Bill and ensure that those who come to the UK illegally will not be able to stay. Pending their removal, we will ensure that we support those who are complying with arrangements for removal. I make no apology for introducing these measures to protect and preserve the integrity of our asylum and migration system.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for setting out her amendments to Clause 8. Amendments 57C and 57F seek to create a right of appeal against a decision to refuse an application for support under Section 95A of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which would take effect only if supporting provisions in the Immigration Act 2016 are brought into force. The Government keep these matters under review but I can answer the noble Baroness’s question directly: there are no current plans to bring those measures into force, and so we consider these amendments unnecessary. Therefore, those who are refused support under Section 4 of the 1999 Act will still be able to appeal the decision.
Similarly, we do not consider Amendment 57D necessary. As I have told noble Lords frequently throughout Committee, our intention is to detain and swiftly remove people. We expect that the overwhelming majority of those who fall within the scope of the duty to remove will need accommodation as well as financial support. These individuals will therefore be provided with financial support to meet their essential living needs, pending their removal from the UK.
Although I recognise the intention behind Amendment 57E, the Government do not consider it necessary to provide a statutory basis on which to provide temporary support. As I have said, our intention is to detain and swiftly remove those who enter illegally and meet the conditions in Clause 2. The details of how the scheme will work in practice, including the support provided during this interim period, are currently under active consideration. We are confident that there is sufficient scope to be able to provide adequate support to individuals pending a determination of their application under Section 4 of the 1999 Act. Obviously, we will bear in mind the contributions made during this short debate.
Finally, Amendment 57G seeks to amend uncommenced provisions in the Immigration Act 2016 and, in so doing, alter the long-standing position that Section 4 support would be available only to people who face a genuine obstacle in leaving the UK. The Government have no plans to implement the 2016 Act provisions in the immediate future; even if we were to do so, we see no need to alter the existing approach to eligibility under Section 4 for this group of people. Eligibility for Section 4 support is a long-standing position. As long as individuals whom we support pending their removal co-operate with the process, they will remain eligible for support.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, the noble Lord, Lord German, and the train-bound right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham asked about the Section 4 application form. We are working on the arrangements for implementing these provisions. As part of that, we will consider what changes, if any, are required to the Section 4 application form.
Where necessary, the Government will provide accommodation and basic support for those who are subject to the duty to make arrangements for removal and who are not being detained pending their removal. In answer to the right reverend Prelate, I can assure him that, with the changes made by Clause 8, we consider that there is sufficient legislative cover to provide such support where a person would otherwise be left destitute. On that basis, I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, including the right reverend Prelate, in his absence; we know that he had to get his train. I am also grateful to the Minister for answering more questions than I expected him to be able to.
I am disturbed by the proposition that it is not necessary to provide a statutory basis for temporary support because the intention is to remove people quickly. The Government are the only people who think that removal will be quick. All the organisations on the ground predict a state of semi-permanent limbo—purgatory, as some of them have called it. There needs to be a proper statutory basis for the support that these people are provided with. I hope that the Minister will look at this point again.
Other noble Lords have asked questions that have not, I think, been answered. I would be grateful if the Minister or his officials could look through Hansard and answer any remaining questions. The noble Lord, Lord German, certainly asked a number of questions that have not been addressed. I will not detain the Committee now by pressing them—I am sure that the noble Lord will not either—but I ask that a letter answering those questions goes to the noble Lords who have participated in Committee before Report.
It would also be helpful if the Government published as clearly as they can a statement on what is proposed. We can piece bits together from the Minister’s reply today but the point has been made that local authorities, faith groups, refugee organisations and others need to start planning; they need to know. A clear statement would therefore be helpful.
I finish by quoting the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, who said that this is going to be like detention without walls. That is a very telling statement. It is important that we get this right. We do not want large numbers of people destitute on our streets because they are in this permanent limbo. I look forward to seeing what the Minister has to say in any subsequent letters but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
“Repeal of asylum seeker accommodation regulationsThe Houses in Multiple Occupation (Asylum-Seeker Accommodation) (England) Regulations 2023 are repealed on the day on which this Act is passed.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the repeal of the Houses in Multiple Occupation (Asylum-Seeker Accommodation) Regulations 2023.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, this amendment relates to a statutory instrument that has recently been approved.
I appreciate that the issues of the use of houses in multiple occupation for asylum seekers and the changes in the standards applying to such houses for that purpose may not have crossed the inboxes of most noble Lords; they certainly had not crossed mine until I was told that the SI changing the regulations was scheduled and found myself scheduled to speak on it. Like many such instruments, it was considered in Grand Committee and then went through the House very quickly. The purpose of the instrument is to make provision to exempt accommodation provided by the Home Office for asylum seekers from licensing requirements; that sounds quite straightforward.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I speak in favour of Amendment 58, which I put my name to, moved by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I draw the Committee’s attention to my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I reiterate what my noble friend Lady Hamwee just said: history is important. The catalyst for licensing HMOs in this country was a fire in 1981 in which eight individuals were killed and 100 residents of 56 bedsits were affected. Those who survived and those who died were all asylum seekers. That was the catalyst for the HMO licensing regime. That is where the campaign really started. The key issue for the introduction of the HMO licensing was to allow local authority housing enforcement teams to hold HMO landlords in their area to account for providing national minimum standards, and for local authorities to know exactly where HMOs were, so that they could be inspected effectively.
When the statutory instrument was in Grand Committee, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, was very reassuring in telling the Committee that this had nothing to do with the dilution of standards and that it was all about speed to get houses for asylum seekers ready to go so that they could be housed. Speed can and does cut corners. It became quite obvious from the written answers we received to our questions in Grand Committee that the standards will be watered down, and in some cases will now be dangerous and potentially lead to fires and other issues that could cause fatalities. These are standards for homes, not houses but homes, for some of the most vulnerable people in the world.
There were 11 standards raised in Grand Committee, which included everything ranging from the electrical compliance of equipment to HMO landlords being fit and proper persons for those properties. Of the 11 standards, only one is either equivalent or better than the HMO licensing conditions. All the others are a dilution of the standards. For example, the licensing of HMOs minimum standards state that the electrical appliances and furniture supplied by the landlord must be maintained in a safe condition and that a declaration of safety for all electrical appliances and furniture must be supplied on demand by the authority. However, the Home Office equivalent asylum accommodation and support services contract states only that electrical appliances are required to be inspected once every five years. It says nothing about the condition of furniture.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I rise in support of Amendment 58. I am sorry that I could not be at the Grand Committee debate on the regulations because of another commitment. Given the representations that have been made by a range of an organisations, I felt it was important to say a few words.
All people should have access to secure, safe and decent accommodation, no matter what status they hold. While it is right that we should not have people housed in hotels for longer than necessary, the removal of so-called red tape, which potentially includes shortcuts around safety standards, as we have heard, seems exceedingly risky. Once again, we have been asked to put our trust in the Home Office and its subcontractors instead of properly resourcing local authorities to provide adequate housing. This is not the way to address the backlog or accommodation shortages. The speed of procurement should not come at the possible cost of life.
Earlier this month, while the Levelling-Up Secretary was unveiling new laws protecting renters’ rights, his colleagues were debating the Government’s intention to scrap HMO licensing for asylum seekers’ accommodation. That seems somewhat perverse. The Government state in their Explanatory Memorandum to the regulations that part of the rationale for the change was that subcontractors
“raised concerns that … regulation is posing a barrier to acquiring … properties”.
But the suspicion is that subcontractors’ concerns are motivated more by profits than by the need to reduce backlogs and move people into accommodation. As my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage asked during the Grand Committee debate, what evidence is there—again there is this question of evidence; it seems that with every amendment we are asking for evidence—to suggest that this change in regulations will speed up procurement of accommodation? The potential to undermine safety and standards seems very risky if there is not clear evidence to suggest that it will achieve the Home Office’s intended outcomes. Local authorities are concerned that any further erosion of enforcement powers will lead to a decrease in accommodation standards, where the reverse is needed.
The excellent briefing from the Chartered Institute of Housing, Crisis, JCWI and others argued:
“The assertion from the Government that HMO licence levels of protection will be maintained in these properties, but overseen by the Home Office rather than the local authority, is deeply suspect. People are already losing their lives in asylum accommodation managed by private subcontractors on behalf of the Home Office”.
Echoing the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, it was alarming to read at the weekend that asylum seekers were left on the streets in Westminster for two nights running because of accommodation problems and that the Immigration Minister had led moves to require groups of up to four adult males to share single rooms in so-called Operation Maximise. Richard Drax, a Conservative MP, has equated this to putting them in prison. As the leader of Westminster Council commented, to ask people who are
“likely to have been through significant and traumatic events … to share an inappropriately sized room”—
we are talking about a single room here, not some palatial five-star room—
“with multiple strangers defies common sense and basic decency”.
Basic decency, as well as safety, is what is at stake with these regulations.
Can the Minister give us an assurance that Operation Maximise will be abandoned at once in the interest of basic decency? With regard to these regulations, can he reassure us that the Home Office or its contractors have the skills to make a proper assessment of the risks around fire safety that an experienced and qualified local authority environmental health officer would have?
In the recent debate in Grand Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, asked the Minister to confirm that the same conditions that apply to an HMO licence will be replicated in the contract with the provider of accommodation for those seeking asylum. I do not think that the noble Lord has asked this again tonight, but I hope he will forgive me if he has. As the DLUHC Minister was unable to answer the question because it related to Home Office responsibilities, perhaps the Minister could provide an answer now.
In conclusion, this amendment should have never been needed but, unless we get serious assurances around living and safety standards, I can only question how the Government have decided that creating unsafe homes and putting asylum seekers in them is a decent strategy. As the Chartered Institute of Housing has said, HMOs will undoubtedly prove cheaper, but at what cost?
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, this amendment, at its heart, is about the Government’s proposal to exempt housing for asylum seekers from licensing conditions. My noble friend Lady Hamwee outlined the two principal areas of concern, which have been the thread throughout this short debate. One is the conditions of the accommodation and the second is the impact on the rented housing sector in its entirety. I would add that the limited number of properties that are available in the private rented sector is in danger of impacting seriously on the number of houses for people who are looking for that accommodation but are not asylum seekers.
I will ask the Minister as well about the devolved responsibilities in this area, because the private rented sector in Wales is quite differently managed under Welsh Parliament legislation. I would like to understand whether the Government have consulted the devolved Administrations to find out how they propose to deal with this matter. In the case of Wales, all private rented sector accommodation is required to be licensed, not just HMOs. There is a strict regime and landlords pay for that licence. Clearly, that has had some impact on raising standards. That is an important issue, and if it is going to be reduced further, the Government need to explain why.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee pointed out that there is a better way forward, and mentioned the need for a more collaborative, non-regulatory approach. My noble friend Lord Scriven pointed out that licensing provides protections, and I think we all understand that. He illustrated it by talking about smoke and CO2 alarms. The reduction in standards is implicit in the proposals that are contained in the statutory instrument. It seems to me that we need to have a proper inspection regime, as stated by my noble friend Lord Scriven. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, raised the issue of the safety of people being at risk. That is at the heart of all this. Are we going to put the safety of this vulnerable group of people at risk by returning to the original situation before the HMO legislation came into place? Are we going to manage the contractors properly and correctly? Clearly, the process of creating unsafe homes is not in anybody’s interest in this country at all, and neither is placing people within them.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for moving this amendment. It was a good idea to address this issue in this context, even though it was fully addressed when the SI was debated. The Labour Party voted against the SI in the House of Commons, but it was not pushed to a vote in this House. Nevertheless, this is an appropriate Bill for us to address the issue again.
As we have heard, the regulations for HMOs were brought in following a fire in Notting Hill in which eight people died and almost 100 people lost their homes and possessions. Almost six years after that came the catastrophic fire in Grenfell Tower. These DLUHC regulations could lead to another fatal fire in an HMO used to accommodate people seeking asylum or other people in housing need. As we have heard from the briefings that we have all received—particularly the Shelter briefing, which was a particularly full briefing —people seeking asylum can be particularly vulnerable to fire risks, due to disabilities and health problems, being unaware of what standards to expect in a new country, being unable to read or speak England, and perhaps being reluctant, or less able, to complain to the authorities.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)
My Lords, I acknowledge the gracious compliments paid by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to my noble friend Lady Scott, which I will pass on.
As the noble Baroness has explained, the amendment would prospectively revoke the Houses in Multiple Occupation (Asylum-Seeker Accommodation) (England) Regulations 2023. Those regulations, which have not yet been made, would amend the definition of “house in multiple occupation” in England for the purposes of Part 2 of the Housing Act 2004. The effect of the regulations is that accommodation provided on behalf of the Home Office for destitute asylum seekers will not require an HMO licence from a local authority for a specified period. The exemption will apply to properties that begin to be used as asylum accommodation from the point when the regulations come into force up to 30 June 2024, and last for a two-year period.
It is the Government’s intention with these measures to ameliorate conditions for asylum seekers. The regulations will support the rapid provision of accommodation for asylum seekers in local areas. I emphasise the urgency of this important reform, which forms part of a suite of measures to accomplish wider asylum delivery plans.
Many contributions—I noted in particular that of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett—focused on the use of hotel accommodation for asylum seekers. There are over 56,000 asylum seekers currently living in contingency accommodation, mainly hotels. The reform will support the necessary steps being taken to accelerate moving asylum seekers out of hotel accommodation—which the Government accept is inappropriate, generally speaking, and furthermore is more costly—into more suitable and cost-effective accommodation.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I notice that in the statutory instrument there is no impact assessment. The Minister has just reiterated what the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said in Grand Committee, that this would speed up the number of properties coming on to the market for asylum seekers. As there is no impact assessment, could he tell us how many a year will come on to the market for asylum seekers that would not have done if these regulations were not made?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
The noble Lord asks a highly detailed numerical question, and he will not be surprised to know that I am unable to answer it from the Dispatch Box.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
We will do our best to provide one in short order in writing to the noble Lord, if that would be acceptable to the noble Baroness.
Lord Scriven (LD)
It would be acceptable to me, but time and time again, the noble and learned Lord has reiterated what was said in Grand Committee. Surely, that is something he should have asked for in meetings before standing at the Dispatch Box and giving that assurance to the Committee.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I repeat that I will endeavour to provide an answer to the noble Lord.
The use of hotels as being inappropriate was a matter raised again by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, in relation to Operation Maximise, and that was a scheme to use hotel rooms to accommodate asylum seekers. It is in order to move away from the use of hotels and provide more suitable accommodation that the Government are advancing these measures.
Asylum accommodation and support contract providers have identified existing licensing requirements for HMO properties as a challenge to swiftly making such accommodation available, in particular where local authorities apply licensing conditions that exceed statutory requirements, detracting from the viability of the property. The introduction of this exemption would mean that national standards apply uniformly to all new asylum accommodation, thus removing barriers to acquiring the more suitable and cost-effective accommodation, of which I was speaking, for housing asylum seekers and assisting in that aim of accomplishing dispersal of asylum seekers so the country bears the burden more evenly.
There were questions from a number of your Lordships —from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in opening, from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, responding for the Opposition—about whether these measures were intended to create lower standards. That is not the case. The Home Office accommodation contracts with our service providers set out clear minimum standards for all asylum accommodation. This is used to ensure compliance with standards similar to those used in local authority licensing.
Lord Scriven (LD)
We have answers that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, gave to us in writing after we had asked the questions. Of the eleven standards that questions were asked about, only one meets the requirements of the national HMO licensing conditions; 10 do not. Therefore, the standards are not similar to the HMO licensing. They are a dilution of standards in the HMO licensing system. Would the Minister not accept that is the case in light of the answers that the Home Office and DLUHC have already given to noble Lords?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
“Similar” does not mean “the same”. I will endeavour to answer questions raised by the noble Lord, but I would doubt whether the answers I am able to give will satisfy him as much as the answers to his own questions which he has already given.
All dispersal accommodation is required to meet the room and space standards in the Housing Act 1985 or the Housing Act 2004 as appropriate. Properties are also required to have at least one bathroom and one kitchen per five occupants as well as meet the statutory space standards, and this will continue in HMO licence-exempt properties and will be checked on inspection. I will come to the inspection regime in due course.
All dispersal accommodation is also required to meet a range of other standards, for example for effective fire safety risk assessments to be carried out and acted upon, and for gas and electrical safety to be properly certified. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, spoke eloquently about the genesis of such measures arising out of a tragic fire. I am able to advise the Committee that the Home Office is working with the national fire safety co-ordination centre in relation to fire safety provisions in such properties.
Compliance with these requirements will also be checked by the Home Office’s asylum support contract assurance team. All asylum seekers have access, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to an advice, issue reporting and eligibility service provided for the Home Office by Migrant Help, where they can raise any concerns regarding accommodation or support services. They can also get information about how to obtain further support.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord German, raised the interaction of such properties with the provision of housing for homeless persons. The Government will do everything they can to mitigate the risk of homelessness, in support of the existing cross-government commitment to end rough sleeping within this Parliament and to fully enforce the Homelessness Reduction Act. To support this, while recognising the burden that local authorities are under, the Government will increase funding for local authorities to support asylum seekers and encourage councils to make properties available more quickly. To support local authorities this year, a one-off payment for each person accommodated on 1 April 2023 has increased from £250 to £750 per person. Councils will continue to receive £3,500 quarterly for each new dispersal bed made available thereafter during the financial year 2023-24. Payment will be made through the same grant process as used in 2022-23.
In addition, as part of a four-month pilot, to which we have had reference, councils will receive a further incentive payment of between £2,000 and £3,000 where a bed is made available within an expedited timeframe following identification. This almost doubles existing funding for those local authorities which take on new accommodation and do so quickly. The Home Office will also monitor any impact and will be conducting a full burdens assessment, working with the Local Government Association.
This brings me to the points raised by noble Lords on engagement with local authorities. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who particularly sought assurances about co-operation between central and local government on these matters. Home Office engagement with local authorities has increased significantly, and improved, since the introduction of an engagement strategy which is designed specifically to ensure that impacts on local services can be raised, discussed and mitigated through multi-agency forums.
The full dispersal team also currently meets every region at least once a month and some regions more regularly. These meetings are the key to driving delivery of regional dispersal plans. The Home Office engages regularly with local authority chief executive leads in a number of forums, including the asylum and resettlement council senior engagement group and the strategic oversight group. At these groups, HMO plans are being discussed alongside wider asylum and resettlement-related issues affecting councils across the UK. These are bodies within which the concerns raised in this debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, and others can be raised.
The Home Office will also be arranging an open forum for local authorities to attend to provide local government colleagues with opportunities to discuss issues of concern with senior Home Office officials. Through its strategic oversight group, the Home Office is looking to set up a sub-group which will explore the issue of community cohesion with local authorities. This group would complement other work strands that are exploring related regional impacts.
On the subject of inspections, the Home Office is doubling the size of the current team in asylum support contract assurance to undertake additional inspections and other assurance work in response to the HMO licensing exemption. Inspections will be undertaken by housing health and safety rating scheme-qualified inspectors on all HMO properties that benefit from this exemption at least once in the two-year exemption period. This is in addition to the monthly inspections made by the accommodation providers themselves to ensure that the appropriate property standards are being maintained.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I thank the noble and learned Lord for giving way again. I asked this in Grand Committee and do so again today: the doubling is a doubling, but what will the actual full-time equivalent be and what will it mean in terms of the average number per local authority area in England?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
Again, the noble Lord asks a question of some detail and I will, with his leave, respond in writing. I appreciate his point that doubling from one to two is not significant. However, the Committee has heard me speak of the breadth of support and inspection that will be given and the expertise of those carrying out the inspections. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for nodding his assent; he can expect to receive a letter from the department in due course.
These regulations are subject to the draft affirmative procedure, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said as much in introducing the debate. They have been considered and approved by this House and await approval by the House of Commons. They are subject to sunsetting provisions, as stated. They are an appropriate response to the short-term challenges we face accommodating asylum seekers.
The Home Office has put additional measures in place of a robust nature to ensure that housing quality is maintained to a national standard. In addition to the usual assurances via the terms of contracts entered into, an enlarged team of appropriately qualified inspectors will inspect each eligible property at least once during the exemption period, as I said to the noble Lord a moment ago.
I reassure the Committee once again that these regulations and the actions of the Home Office in drawing them up and moving this policy forward are informed by our consciousness of the terrible past tragedies which have overtaken people living in accommodation of this sort. We are all too well aware of the incidents the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, drew to the attention of the Committee, and to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, adverted in passing at the outset of her remarks. I offer to the Committee an assurance that we are aware of this and that the inspection regime we set up will, as much as is humanly possible, look to prevent such things happening again.
Lord German (LD)
I wonder if the noble and learned Lord could answer my question about the devolved Administrations and their licensing powers?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I beg the noble Lord’s pardon; I meant to answer that question and sought specific information from the Bill team on it. The regulations apply only to England and not to Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland.
Finally, I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I am not going to say very much. Many Members are waiting to consider the large number of amendments we are scheduled to get through tonight—whether we will or not, we will see.
I thank the noble and learned Lord for his responses to the shedload of questions which came from this side. I was surprised that he started by saying that the regulations are intended to ameliorate conditions for asylum seekers, because it seems to everyone involved that it is about numbers and not better conditions. He has given assurances about engagement with local authorities, but it was the Local Government Association which particularly asked to be reassured about engagement, so this remains a live issue. He said that the lump sum of up to, I think, £3,500 would be paid in the circumstances he mentioned. I had understood from briefing that that was only for the pilot period of four months. Could he let me know after today if that is correct?
Finally, the noble and learned Lord mentioned Migrant Help. There have been a lot of tales over the last few months of people in hotels who have asked for some help from the contract providers who run the hotels or from other staff, and been told, “Oh, go and ask Migrant Help”. I do not think that it is quite the smooth process that was just suggested. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord German
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, as Amendments 61, 62 and 66 are consequential to Amendment 58B, I will speak to all three at the same time as moving it; they all sit together.
Currently, pursuant to Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971, the Secretary of State for Home Affairs may detain people for immigration purposes only in places set out by her in a direction. Detention in places not specified by her in a direction will be unlawful. The Bill amends that direction to include
“any place that the Secretary of State considers appropriate”.
Following the publication of the Bill, the Immigration Minister in the other place outlined that the expansion of the asylum and migrant estate will include military barracks and that the Home Office will
“continue to explore the possibility of accommodating migrants in vessels”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/3/23; col. 1018.]
More recently, the Government announced plans to house 500 asylum seekers on a barge in Portland, off the coast of Dorset. It remains unclear whether these settings will also be used as detention facilities as the provisions of the Bill seek to give the Home Secretary the power to detain individuals in such places, despite the risks posed by facilities such as Manston, which I will come to later. Some of the further mooted facilities present additional risks of their own, with military bases potentially triggering pre-existing vulnerabilities in people who have likely fled war and/or persecution. Will the Minister explain the reasons for granting the Secretary of State the power to detain people in “any place” that she “considers appropriate”?
If the intention is to allow detention in places not currently set out in the Immigration (Places of Detention) Direction 2021, will the Minister give details of where these places will be? For example, will the detention centres include military sites, such as Scampton in Lincolnshire, Wethersfield in Essex and Bexhill in East Sussex, or barges, such as the “Bibby Stockholm”, due to be moored in Portland? With the announcement this week by the PM of more barges to house asylum seekers, can the Minister advise on the cost of these, given that the aim has been to reduce money spent on accommodation, especially if some of this will be used for detention purposes?
Current Home Office plans suggest that these facilities are being considered for use as asylum accommodation only rather than detention. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government in fact plan to use them in whole, or part, as detention sites? If the intention is to allow detention in places not currently set out in the immigration direction of 2021, will the Minister explain how the Secretary of State will ensure that the standards set out in the Detention Centre Rules 2001 and the Short-term Holding Facility Rules 2018 are met in relation to the treatment of detained persons, including the safeguarding of vulnerable people known to be at particular risk of suffering harm in detention, such as victims of torture and trafficking, pregnant women and those with serious mental health conditions? What legal framework will exist to ensure these standards in such places? Are we to expect regulations and, if so, will we see them in draft before the Bill is completed? Has the Home Office carried out a full risk assessment linked to the proposed expansion of the detention estate and will it be published? How will the Minister seek to avoid scenes such as those at Manston, described by the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration as “wretched”, if there is no extra detention capacity when the Bill passes?
It is interesting to note that, just this week, we have had the publication of the report of the unannounced inspection of Manston by His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons. I am sure Ministers have seen his comments. They are clearly concerning, and I shall briefly mention four priority areas: detention in the facilities was too long; the governance of adult and child safeguarding was poor; there was no accurate data on the use of force or separation from the general population or of incidents of violence and non-compliance; and professional interpretation was not always used consistently. There is a danger that Manston will not be able to cope any better than it was coping when the disturbances took place there more than 12 months ago. The response to the report from the Chief Inspector of Prisons is therefore important, to show that the Home Office will ensure safeguarding and care for individuals, which is not currently present.
According to Charlie Taylor’s report, there is no oversight of leadership and safeguarding, or of the use of force. These are incredibly important issues in places of detention. Care planning for vulnerable detainees and children with disabilities was poor and did not demonstrate individual planning, risk assessment or meaningful welfare checks.
Given the responses that we see about the current detention regime in this very recent report from His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons, how does the Minister expect to provide new and extra accommodation, given the challenges the Government are already facing, across the country, from many Conservative MPs, for example, who do not want these in their backyards—not in the run-up to an election, I understand? Can the Minister tell us whether barges are really suitable places for the detention of families and children?
Amendment 62 would place the Secretary of State under a duty to consult local residents before authorising the use of any new facility within these categories. This is critical for community cohesion and well-being. Removing someone’s liberty is a deeply serious issue and we are extremely concerned about the consequences of this clause for the most vulnerable in our society, particularly children, torture victims, pregnant women and victims of modern slavery. It seems to us that the Home Secretary is moving far beyond the sorts of powers necessary to detain people in an appropriate manner, and this manner at the moment gives us minimal recourse to scrutiny.
The lives, liberty and well-being of fellow human beings should not be put on the line as collateral damage for a policy which most of us know will never achieve its stated aims but is being used for political appeasement. For the reasons I have outlined, I also oppose Clause 10 standing part of the Bill. I beg to move Amendment 58B.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 59B, 61A, 64B, 66A and 79C in my name.
Amendments 61A and 66A would ensure that, if children are to be detained or held in temporary accommodation before they are placed with a local authority, there are basic standards in the Bill to ensure that the type of accommodation is suitable, along with the services and standards that are needed to ensure that the best interests and the welfare of the child are paramount, and that the provisions are exactly the same as in the Children Act 1989.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I have only two questions to put to the Minister. I reinforce the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord German.
First, I ask the Minister directly about the issue of capacity. I also want to ask him about the role of the Independent Family Returns Panel. Dr Peter Walsh says that the current detention estate has capacity for about 2,500 individuals, yet we all know that last year 45,000 people arrived on our shores. In addition, there are 160,000 asylum seekers still awaiting decisions. If we take those numbers together, how do they square with the capacity that is planned for the estate? I was also struck by the Taskforce on Victims of Trafficking in Immigration Detention saying:
“We expect that tens of thousands of individuals will be indefinitely detained in immigration detention facilities, with the current already overstretched detention estate being unable to hold anywhere near the numbers anticipated”.
My second question is brief. I am concerned about the disapplication of the duty currently placed on the Secretary of State to consult with the Independent Family Returns Panel in every family returns case, particularly where the family involves children. Has the Minister seen the statement from the UK Committee for UNICEF, which has described this decision for disapplication as “regrettable”? Is that something he might give further thought to?
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I want to make two quite separate points. I pick up on what the noble Lord just said; have the Government looked at what is really happening on the ground, the numbers of people currently waiting to be removed—that is a very large number—and the numbers coming in? How on earth are they going to get people away? Where they are going and what is going to happen was set out in much greater detail on an earlier amendment.
What worries me as I have sat listening, today in particular but really throughout the debates on the Bill, is that I do not think the Government have yet put their mind to the problems of numbers and how on earth they are going to get rid of these people, if I may put it rather bluntly.
The second point, which is so much more important, relates to what the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, just said, and I not only support him but admire him enormously for saying it. As I said on another Bill some time ago, I remind the Government that the Home Secretary is not a corporate parent, nor indeed at the moment is the Secretary of State for Education. The concept of the corporate parent is to be found in the Children Act 1989, as a local authority. Currently, the Government are expecting to deal with sometimes quite young children. I think they are concentrating on the 16 and 17-year-olds who are coming through and are not looking at a minority—but probably a relatively substantial minority—of children who are much younger. They have to be looked after. I do not want to repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said, but it is crucial that they be looked after. The only corporate parent who can care for them is in fact the local authority where the children are. It is about time the Government started to look at not just the best interests of the children, which is so obvious—it worries me that I keep having to talk about that—but the points that the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, made, which really should strike home.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, I support Amendments 61 and 62 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord German, and welcome the opportunity to discuss what rules and regulations His Majesty’s Government will adhere to when selecting a site for the purposes of detention. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham had intended to speak but is unable to be here for this group of amendments; I am glad to be here in his place. I am grateful to Medical Justice for sharing how existing legislation governs both the nature and operation of detention centres. As it is a detailed policy area, I will focus my time on the context for these amendments while also posing questions to the Minister.
First, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham explained at Second Reading, the Bill before us changes the nature and scope of detention considerably. It moves detention away from an administrative process to facilitate someone’s removal to a punitive system of incarceration intended thereby to deter asylum seekers from travelling to the United Kingdom. Deterrence, as we have seen, is a key theme stressed by the Government, albeit no evidence or impact assessment has been adduced in its favour. This shift towards incarceration signals a major transition in policy, but in embarking on this shift in the purpose of detention, the Government leave us with a lack of detail on what rules and guidance will be adhered to when the Secretary of State is selecting a place of detention.
However, the Minister replied on 26 May to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham’s Written Question that individuals can be detained for immigration purposes only
“in places that are listed in the Immigration (Places of Detention) Direction 2021”.
I know that the right reverend Prelate was grateful for that answer. Furthermore, the Minister stated:
“All Immigration Removal Centres … must operate in compliance with the Detention Centre Rules 2001, this includes any additional sites that are opened as IRCs to increase detention capacity”.
Can the Minister therefore say whether it will remain unlawful for the Government to authorise places of detention outside those specified in the direction?
Secondly, will the Minister explain how the power granted by Clause 10 to the Secretary of State to detain people
“in any place that the Secretary of State considers appropriate”
marries up with the Immigration (Places of Detention) Direction 2021? The Minister may understand my concern that the power to deprive a person of their liberty, and how and where someone is detained, should be constrained by law and not the discretion of a Minister of the Crown, or anyone else.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 69 is in my name. I am very grateful to those who have co-signed it: the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lord, Lord Cashman.
The amendment provides for a general standard or series of standards to be applied—to some extent, picking up some of the more specific points that have been raised by other Members of the Committee. The amendment says:
“The conditions under which persons are detained pursuant to this section must comply with United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Detention Guidelines”.
This becomes particularly important in the context of this proposed legislation because there is no time limit currently provided for detention. Indeed, earlier today, the Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, made great play of the fact that currently Rwanda is the only country in Schedule 1 which has actually signed up to admit people and therefore the rest of the people are not going to be accommodated by way of a removal.
People who are not suitable to go to Rwanda, which, according to the FCDO’s travel guidelines, would certainly include LGBT people, would be subject to indefinite detention until some other arrangement—if and when, if ever—with a truly safe place for that group was arrived at.
The UNHCR’s refugee Detention Guidelines currently set out, in guideline 8, some 18 minimum conditions of detention. They range from general propositions on treating asylum seekers with dignity to conditions around medical treatment; the ability of persons resident in detention to make contact; physical exercise; for children, education and vocational training; standards of food; and so forth. We certainly know that, on the ground at the moment, those standards are not being adhered to in the accommodation currently being occupied by those who seek asylum.
The time has come—particularly in view of the possibility of detention without any limit whatever; although that issue is going to be dealt with in a later group, I might add that it is in itself contrary to guideline 6 of the UNHCR’s refugee Detention Guidelines —when the Government must commit themselves to the minimum recognised standards that apply to asylum seekers. As others have said, we are not just dealing with numbers—number 1,231, for example. Each of these cases is a human being deserving of dignity and proper treatment.
Those are the minimum standards set down in guideline 8. I would like to know whether it is the Government’s proposal that they should adhere to these minimum standards.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I rise in support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, whose Amendment 69 I have signed. It would require detention conditions to comply with those set out in guidelines by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. I need not repeat the arguments that the Committee well understands about the United Kingdom’s historic role in the refugee convention and other aspects of the post-war human rights settlement.
Like many noble Lords in this Committee, I have been in these debates for some time, so I understand that there is some dispute on the Government Benches about the UNHCR. The UNHCR says something; they say, “So what? It is just another woke NGO”. Well, it is not. The UNHCR has a special role in the convention. It is a UN body and it was given a special role in the supervision of the refugee convention.
I simply refer noble Lords to Article 35 of the convention, headed “Co-operation of the national authorities with the United Nations”. We were an architect of the convention and a key signatory to it; I am sure that every Member in this Committee wants to abide by it. Article 35 states:
“The Contracting States undertake to co-operate with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, or any other agency of the United Nations which may succeed it, in the exercise of its functions, and shall in particular facilitate its duty of supervising the application of the provisions of this Convention”.
This body was given from the beginning the very special role of supervising the convention. That is fair enough, is it not? It cannot just be that every nation gets to interpret the convention in its own way; that would not exactly be global governance.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
Is that not precisely what the Vienna convention on the interpretation of treaties provides for: that each nation interprets it? States have to relate to and deal with the body to which the noble Baroness refers, but that is separate to the legal question of what the convention actually means. These are two distinct legal questions, are they not?
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Well done. Article 35 continues:
“In order to enable the Office of the High Commissioner or any other agency of the United Nations which may succeed it, to make reports to the competent organs of the United Nations, the Contracting States undertake to provide them in the appropriate form with information”.
The bottom line is that the UNHCR is not just any other body, think tank, NGO or pressure group. It is a specific organ of the United Nations that was commissioned right at the beginning, when this convention was drafted, to have a special role in its supervision. That is why I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, in suggesting as a bare minimum that our detention provisions ought to comply with guidelines—they are only guidelines—set out by the UNHCR. We can have these lovely little Oxford Union interventions from Members opposite, but the bottom line is that if we do not comply—
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I am sorry, but this is not an Oxford Union intervention. There is a clear distinction between an obligation to co-operate with a body in the implementation of the convention and that body having a role in the interpretation of the convention. They are different legal concepts and, with great respect, the noble Baroness knows that; it is quite wrong to elide one with the other. “Interpretation” does not appear in Article 35 and is deliberately excluded.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am very grateful, obviously, to the noble Lord for his intervention. I repeat:
“The Contracting States undertake to co-operate with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees”.
This was the body given special status in the drafting of the very precious convention that was drafted with key instigation by the wartime generation in this country for reasons that I need not repeat.
If we do not comply with guidance from the UNHCR in relation to the detention of asylum seekers and refugees, who will? For that reason alone, I am very glad to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 70A in this group is in my name and also signed by my noble friend Lord German. It is focused on the protection of unaccompanied migrant children and child victims of modern slavery. Picking up on the theme from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, I want to make a brief reference to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 22 on refugee children says if a child is seeking refuge or has refugee status Governments must provide them with appropriate protection and assistance to help them enjoy all the rights in the convention.
There is consistent medical evidence that immigration detention is damaging the mental health of those who are detained. This Bill now forces children to be detained beyond the very short period which has been about acceptable before, although it was good that during the coalition years we stopped children being held in detention.
People seeking asylum have a very high prevalence of pre-existing vulnerabilities, including serious mental health conditions and histories of being trafficked, tortured and suffering sexual and gender-based violence. This puts them at particular risk of being further harmed in their time in detention.
The health implications of this Bill to detain people anyway without adherence to particular standards was highlighted by the events at Manston. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark has mentioned, it had a capacity of 1,600 but last autumn it was overcrowded, with the number of people detained nearing 4,000 following a decision by the Home Secretary not to send people on to hotels. People were beyond the 24-hour time limit without clear lawful basis for detention in holding rooms or five days in holding facilities.
My noble friend Lord German referred to the recent reinspection of Manston, but it is worthy of note that Charlie Taylor said there seemed to be some improvements while it was “fairly empty” but that he
“was not assured that if numbers increase … the site will be able to cope much better”
than last autumn, which is why I wish to persevere with my amendment. Conditions at Manston deteriorated very quickly and are likely to have amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of Article 3 of the ECHR, including overcrowded living conditions, unclean and unhygienic facilities, inadequate food provisions—some days without sufficient food or drinking water—lack of adequate medical care and spread of infectious diseases.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I was going to ask this question in the next group, but it is more appropriate to ask it here. It was raised by Doctors Without Borders in its damning briefing: what specific care will be provided for children with pre-existing or emergent health needs?
Also, following on from my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, I have been in correspondence with the UNHCR about the different interpretations of the UN convention and the refugee convention that came up when I asked on our first day in Committee why we should accept the Government’s interpretation of the refugee convention over that of the body which has global responsibility for it. The Minister was rather dismissive of the UNHCR, which, in response, highlights that its position on the Illegal Migration Bill—one diametrically opposed to the Government’s—is that it will go against the obligations under the refugee convention. The UNHCR’s institutional position has been conveyed to the Government in the exercise of its responsibilities under Article 35. It does not accept that this is a legitimate interpretation of the refugee convention.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak briefly on Amendment 69 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and others. My intervention is prompted by a meeting I had earlier today with the disabled Greens group, specifically on the question of meeting the needs of disabled asylum seekers and refugees. That caused me to look up the details of the UNHCR Detention Guidelines, specifically point 9.5, which says that states may be required to make reasonable accommodations to ensure that they meet the specific needs of disabled asylum seekers. It says:
“As a general rule, asylum-seekers with long-term physical, mental, intellectual and sensory impairments should not be detained”,
and that accommodation needs to be accessible.
The disabled Greens raised with me their particular concern about the barges, about which the Government seem very enthusiastic and to which they have been paying a great deal of attention. It is difficult to see how those barges could possibly meet the accommodation requirements of disabled asylum seekers.
A number of noble Lords referred to the historic situation at Manston, but we have seen the Chief Inspector of Prisons expressing great concern about what is happening there right at this moment. The focus has very much been on children but, if we are not able to identify and assist children appropriately, I really wonder whether we are also able to identify and assist refugees with disabilities, who may have specific needs. Can the Minister say how the Government will ensure that they meet the needs of asylum seekers with disabilities?
Finally, without in any way daring to intervene in a discussion between two lawyers on a fine technical point, I just note that Article 35 of the convention, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, says that:
“The Contracting States undertake to co-operate with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees”.
The relationship does not look much like co-operation at the moment.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid I rise again to make a point that really should not have to be made. I made the point on a previous group that we are a dualist state where international law is not part of domestic law unless and until it is so incorporated by this Parliament. Later, perhaps in a question, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, rather poured scorn and said that this was some sort of technical dualist point. It is not a technical dualist point; it is a fundamental part of our constitution.
Another fundamental part of our constitution is that, when we sign up to international treaties such as the Vienna convention, we have to look at what they actually say. This is not an Oxford Union debating point for two reasons: first, it is far more important than that; and secondly, I have never been a member of the Oxford Union. Article 31 of the Vienna convention, on the interpretation of treaties, says:
“A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose”.
Each state therefore has to interpret its obligations under a treaty.
Some treaties, such as the European Convention on Human Rights, have a court attached to them. If you sign that treaty and sign up to the court, you are obliged to abide by the rulings of the court, in so far as those rulings emanate from the treaty. For example, Article 46.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides that the UK has to abide by any judgment given against the UK by that court. That is what we signed up to in the treaty. The refugee convention does not have a court attached to it. Therefore, this country, like every other, has to interpret the treaty bona fide—in good faith.
What, then, is the position of the UNHCR? It is exactly as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, read out from the treaty, but it is not the gloss that she put on it. The word “interpret”, which she used in her speech, does not appear in the treaty. That is not an accident, because the states were not going to give the UNHCR the power—[Interruption.] I will give way if the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, wants to make an intervention; otherwise, I cannot hear her.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
If the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, does not want to take that opportunity, I would quite like to. The noble Lord makes the point that Article 35 of the refugee convention does not have the term “interpretation”, but it does say, as the noble Baroness quoted:
“The Contracting States undertake to co-operate with the Office of the … High Commissioner … in the exercise of its functions, and shall in particular facilitate its duty of supervising the application of the provisions of this Convention.”
I suggest that that is not a million miles from assisting in the common interpretation of the convention.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord. Acoustics are not always with me. I literally read from Article 35 and so did not use “interpret”. I used words such as “co-operate”. I think that I might have said “supervise”—I believe there is a supervisory jurisdiction. At this late hour, I really do not think that this should be a great beef between lawyers. I just say that there is a duty to co-operate with the UNHCR, and it has a special position as an organ of the UN that we set up. That is why I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, that our detention policies ought to have serious regard to the guidelines from the UNHCR.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I may have misheard, but I thought I heard “interpret”. I think that other noble Lords did as well. The Official Report will make it clear, no doubt. With great respect to the noble Baroness, in legal terms there is a million miles between a duty to co-operate and giving that other party the right to interpret. There is a huge difference between this country as a state saying that the treaty means whatever the UNHCR says it means and, on the other hand, saying that we will co-operate with the UNHCR to enable it to fulfil its obligations under the treaty but we as a state arrogate and retain the right to arrogate to ourselves in good faith and bona fide what that treaty actually means. It may sound like one is drawing fine distinctions but there is a very clear distinction, as lawyers will tell you, between the right to interpret a document, whether that be a contract or a treaty, and co-operation in the implementation of whatever that contract or treaty means.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
The noble Lord is a good lawyer and I am not, and I know that time is pressing on. However, it says more than just that we should co-operate with the UNHCR. It asks contracting states to facilitate the UNHCR’s
“duty of supervising the application of the provisions of this Convention”—
I emphasise “supervising”. I do not know how that terminology was arrived at but it is saying more than that the UK must co-operate with the UNHCR. The UNHCR has a sort of supervisory duty, and I think that is more than what the noble Lord is saying.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I am not focusing on the supervisory duty. For these purposes it does not matter whether we have a duty to co-operate once a month or once a day, or to get in touch with it every half an hour. That is just on the scale of the nature of the co-operation duty. My point, and I submit that it is a fundamental one, is that there is a difference in essence—a conceptual distinction—between a co-operation duty with the UNHCR as to whatever the treaty means and agreeing that whatever the UNHCR says the treaty means is what it means. It is not an accident that interpretation was excluded from Article 35. Having made that point about five times, I will sit down.
Lord Etherton (CB)
Perhaps I could just add to all of this. I am sorry to do so; it is a bit unseemly for the lawyers to start arguing among themselves but I think I ought to record that I do not agree with the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, that the effect of Article 31 of the Vienna convention means that this country or any country can give to such a refugee convention any meaning it wishes to. It has to apply, under Article 31 of the Vienna convention, the wording of the refugee convention, bearing its ordinary meaning in the context of what it proposes.
This is a sideline. The Committee needs to concentrate on what the role of the UNHCR is. I think that it is perfectly obvious to virtually everybody that it has a special supervisory role under the refugee convention, as interpreted in accordance with the Vienna convention, in the application and the practical application of the refugee convention. What I was talking about in my amendment, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, was giving due weight to such a body. There is no other body that has that role. This body does, and it has been given by the United Nations.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I am slightly nervous to stand up here. On a serious point, I want to say a few brief words in support of the amendments in this group, in particular Amendment 58B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord German, Amendment 60, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and Amendment 69, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Etherton, my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and others.
In the interests of being brief, I will try to cut through to what I think is the fundamental issue. This group is about standards in detention. The reason this raises such concern, which I think the Minister should address, is that new subsection (2I), as inserted by Clause 10, as has been mentioned by others, says:
“A person (of any age) detained under sub-paragraph (2C) may be detained in any place that the Secretary of State considers appropriate”.
That is a huge power to give to the Secretary of State: to allow the detention of people arriving since 7 March, of any age, in any place. It is perfectly legitimate, and summarises all the amendments and all of the comments —I will not go through them all, and if I have got this wrong then people can intervene and I will apologise—for noble Lords to ask the Minister what that actually means in practice.
I thought that the remarks of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, cut to the chase. If that is the situation, how are those standards going to be maintained? What actually are those standards? Are the standards the same in a barge or in a military camp? These are the sorts of details that the Committee would wish to hear from the Minister. What are the standards, given that it can be any age and in any place? What difference will there be between arrangements for unaccompanied children, families and others? This is particularly important because the power in new subsection (2C) is not actually for people who have been definitely determined as being people we would wish to remove; it is that the immigration officer “suspects”. We are talking about the detention of individuals, maybe children, who we suspect.
That leads us into the next group. However, if we are talking about standards, this becomes particularly relevant. We are talking about people who might actually be regarded as legitimate and eligible asylum seekers, even under the criteria of this Bill.
In order to be brief, I think noble Lords are seeking an answer to the question posed by new subsection (2I). A significant extension of power to the Secretary of State to designate any place for somebody of any age demands that the Minister be very clear about what the standards will be in each of those places, and who will monitor them to ensure that those standards are kept to.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, as we have heard, these amendments bring us on to the issue of detention. The amendments in this group look at the standards of detention accommodation and seek to impose certain minimum standards in respect of accommodation and the treatment of detained individuals.
As I have repeatedly made clear, we need a new, radical approach if we are successfully to tackle the people smugglers and put an end to the dangerous, illegal and unnecessary small-boat crossings of the channel. The scheme provided for in the Bill needs to be unambiguously clear that if you enter the UK illegally you will be liable to detention and swiftly returned to your home country or sent to a safe third country. I want to make clear that the welfare of those who are detained is of the utmost importance. We will detain families and children, including unaccompanied children, only when it is necessary to do so and in appropriate accommodation with appropriate healthcare provision.
Amendments 61, 61A, 62, 66A and 69, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Scriven, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, deal with the issue of accommodation standards and limiting the place of detention. I assure noble Lords that persons detained under the powers conferred by the Bill will be detained in age-appropriate accommodation that meets appropriate standards.
We detain persons for immigration purposes only in places that are listed in the Immigration (Places of Detention) Direction 2021 in accordance with the long-standing provisions of the Immigration Act 1971, at paragraph 18 of Schedule 2. In answer to the point raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, following Royal Assent we will update that direction in line with the new detention powers. Moreover, we already have robust statutory oversight of immigration detention, including inspection by the prisons inspectorate and independent monitoring boards at every detention facility, and effective safeguards within the detention process that, I submit, are sufficient.
My noble friend Lord Wolfson made some powerful points about the application of the international instruments to the question of detention standards, and clearly made the point that the UNHCR was expressly not given the right to issue determinative interpretations of the convention. It is up to states to interpret its terms in good faith, as we are doing.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, also has Amendments 59B, 64B and 79C in this group, which seek to transfer certain powers in relation to the detention and accommodation of unaccompanied children from the Home Secretary to the Secretary of State for Education. To be clear, the noble Lord referred to the temporary housing of unaccompanied children in Home Office-provided accommodation prior to their transfer to the care of a local authority. Such accommodation is not detained accommodation and is therefore not caught by the provisions of these clauses. I assure the noble Lord and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that we will return to this issue when we reach Clause 15.
The immigration functions provided for in the Bill are properly a matter for the Home Office. As noble Lords would expect, we regularly consult and work with the Department for Education on matters impacting on children, and that will continue to be the case in respect of the powers conferred by the Bill as they impact on unaccompanied children. As I have said, these are matters that properly fall within the purview of the Home Secretary and, as such, the functions to which these amendments relate should be exercised by her.
In relation to Amendment 70A which is specifically on the health and well-being of detained individuals, I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that we will work closely with the Department for Education to ensure that there are proper provisions for children in detention, and we will build on our current detention facilities to ensure that they are appropriate and provide safe and secure accommodation for children. The statutory guidance referenced in the noble Baroness’s amendment would not be applicable where someone is detained, but we will ensure that all relevant policies that relate to detention will continue to apply.
All persons entering detention are medically screened on arrival and have access to round the clock healthcare. This will continue to be the case. The existing adults at risk in immigration detention policy will be updated in line with the Bill and will continue to act as a safeguard for vulnerable persons in detention.
The noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, asked about our plans to increase detention capacity. We are increasing our detention capacity to ensure we have enough detention space, and we already have plans in place to build two new immigration removal centres. These include developing a new immigration removal centre in Oxfordshire on the former site of Campsfield House and a new immigration removal centre at Gosport in Hampshire on the former site of Haslar.
Lord Scriven (LD)
If the central tenet of the Bill is to deter people from coming to the UK, why are the Government expanding detention centres?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I can imagine the noble Lord’s response if we did not expand detention centres. The point is that, as a matter of government planning, we need to have sufficient capacity to ensure that we can detain and swiftly remove those who enter the country illegally, in particular those embarking on dangerous journeys across the channel.
Change will not happen overnight, but we are committed to making this legislation work. We are working to find other solutions to scale up our detention capacity too. The first step is to change the law, which is why we are focusing on getting this Bill through Parliament.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, raised a related point, suggesting that large numbers would need to be detained in the absence of returns agreements. I remind him that in addition to our partnership with Rwanda we have returns agreements with 16 countries and that, as I have indicated, a returns agreement is not a prerequisite to our ability to remove people. I hope I have been able to reassure noble Lords about our commitment to maintain appropriate standards of detention accommodation and to provide appropriate care for those held in detention under the powers conferred by the Bill. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord German, will be content to withdraw his Amendment 58B.
Amendment 79C intends to ensure that the Secretary of State for Education has responsibility for unaccompanied children as soon as they arrive in the UK. I suggest that the amendment does not in fact have this effect. It places no duty on the Secretary of State for Education to have any responsibility for arriving children. It would give the Department for Education the power to provide accommodation but not a duty to do so. At this stage the children are already in the Home Office system and the Home Office has pre-existing duties under Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 towards those children. The Home Office also runs existing relevant mechanisms such as the national transfer scheme. It is a matter for the Government as to which department should operate these powers.
This amendment could create a great deal of legal uncertainty, which is not in the best interests of children. For example, where children were not accommodated by a local authority on arrival, the Home Secretary could not use her powers under Clause 16 to move children into local authority placements quickly unless those children were in DfE-run accommodation, which DfE would be under no duty to provide. That uncertainty continues with regard to the application of Clause 19 and how any accommodation power linked to a government department that operates in England only could be applied to the devolved Administrations. For that reason, I invite the noble Lord not to move that amendment.
Lord Etherton (CB)
I asked whether confirmation could be given that the Government will adhere to the 18 minimum conditions in the UNHCR Detention Guidelines. It would be very helpful for the Committee to know specifically which ones they intend to comply with and which they do not.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As I have already indicated, the standards that will be adhered to are those prescribed already in legislation. While the points set out in the UNHCR’s document map on in some respects, there is no exact overlap. The regime which will be applied is that which I have already described.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I wonder if I could ask the Minister two questions. The first relates to his comment before last to my noble friend Lord Scriven about whether the Secretary of State for Education should be the corporate parent for government, as opposed to the corporate parent being local authorities. In the event where there is a delay after a child has arrived before a local authority is allocated to be the corporate parent, who is the corporate parent for that child? The Home Secretary does not have that power; there is no protection and no oversight. I say this in light of the fact that, in Kent, there is a special arrangement for Kent not to be the corporate parent for all unaccompanied minors that have arrived there, for fairly obvious reasons. The concern would be that that child might not get the protection that it needs. That is the first question, which is completely separate to the one on my Amendment 70A.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments about appropriate healthcare, but without knowing what appropriate healthcare is and whether it meets standards that have been set out—even if he says that the guidance would not work—I am somewhat at a loss. Could he write to me to set out exactly what those standards were, because many doctors are extremely concerned about the current standards available for children in detention at the moment?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Yes, certainly. In response to those two points, as the noble Baroness will have seen, we will discuss this again when we reach Clause 15. But Clause 15(1) provides that the Secretary of State may provide or arrange for the provision of accommodation in England for unaccompanied children. As the noble Baroness rightly identifies, presently in Kent there is an agreement which works well. Initial reception facilities are provided by Kent County Council as the corporate parent, then any unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are transferred within the national transfer scheme. Obviously, it is sensible to have the powers in Clause 15(1) as a backstop, in the event that those powers might be needed. I hope that therefore provides a complete answer to the noble Baroness’s first question.
In relation to the second part of her question as to the standards, as I hope I have already made clear, we will be applying the standards that presently remain. It is abundantly clear that those standards are very detailed as set out. I would be happy to write to the noble Baroness to outline what they are. We will definitely be able to provide that.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I thank the noble Lord with regard to the first issue. I wondered if there was actual data on the time that it takes to provide that transfer for children. What I am concerned about is the gap; we may be discussing it later, but the noble Lord raised the issue himself. Could he provide me with a letter that shows exactly how long it takes to get that transfer through, because I am hearing that there are gaps?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Because the powers in the Bill are obviously not yet in force, I cannot answer as to whether there would be a gap. But clearly it is anticipated—it is hoped—that there will not be a need to utilise the powers in Clause 15 routinely, because the situation with respect to Kent and other relevant local authorities should provide an answer. I am afraid that the noble Baroness cannot expect me to look into my crystal ball and predict what the situation will be after the Act is implemented.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am really sorry to prolong this. The noble Lord referred to the national transfer scheme. There is a concern that either it is taking some time or some children are not being transferred; they are, at the moment, without a corporate parent. There must be current data. That is why I ask: what is the normal gap and how many children have not been allocated?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am very happy that the noble Baroness has asked me that question. I am delighted to say that, as of yesterday, there are zero children in Home Office UASC hotels. They are all in the care of local authorities. I hope that provides a fairly clear answer to her question. Perhaps I can invite the noble Lord, Lord Alton, to intervene.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister. My question rather builds on what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has been asking. Earlier I specifically asked about the disapplication of the duty on the Secretary of State to consult with the independent family returns panel and the criticism that has been made by the UK Committee for UNICEF, which said that it regretted that decision. I asked the Minister if he would give further consideration to that point and think further about the safeguards that it enables to be put in place to deal with the kinds of issues the noble Baroness has put to him.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I am sorry that I did not answer that question. The relevant provision is in Clause 13 of the Bill. We will come to discuss it in the 11th group of amendments. Perhaps that might be the moment to explore those detailed points more thoroughly.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, may I press the Minister on the issue of disabled asylum seekers? I raised this specifically in terms of what is happening in general provision, what is happening at Manston, how the Government foresee—or not—disabled asylum seekers being accommodated on barges and whether they foresee provision in the new arrangements under this Bill complying with UNHCR detention guidance for disabled asylum seekers.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The noble Baroness raises an important point. It is obviously right that our guidance reflects the special needs of disabled people in accordance with our duties under the Equality Act. That will continue to be the case. I hope that provides some reassurance for the noble Baroness.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate, not least because I have seen two lawyers agreeing with each other after having a debate of 10 or 15 minutes about a point of law. It is a fascinating experience.
To turn back to the amendments before us, I thank everyone who participated. In the response the Minister just gave, there are a number of matters which I would like to ask him about. If I understood correctly, he said it is the intention to only allow detention in line with the Immigration (Places of Detention) Direction 2021. I think that is what the Minister said. He then immediately said that, after this Bill is enacted, we will amend it—we will uprate it. I do not quite understand what the uprating mechanism is and why you need to uprate a direction you presently agree with. It would be helpful if the Minister could say what he means by uprating and if they are following the Immigration (Places of Detention) Direction 2021—which, I acknowledge, is the right thing to do.
On Campsfield and Gosport, the Minister said that the capacity would be increased. Could he give an indication of the numbers of places there will be in each of those, or the total for both.
Finally, I have what I consider a bit of a non sequitur, but the Minister said it several times and repeated it today. He said that return agreements are not a prerequisite for returns. I did not quite understand that because if you want to return somebody, you need an agreement that they will be taken. That seems to be an agreement. It was a bit of a non sequitur and certainly did not fall within the wonderful statements we had from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, about these matters earlier. If the Minister could address those three questions, I will then be in a position to deal with the amendment.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As I hope I made clear, once the Bill is passed, the direction will need to be updated, rather than “uprated”. It will reflect the new provisions and any new detention facilities that are available to be utilised at that point. I am afraid that I am not in a position to give the noble Lord an indication of the size at this stage.
On returns agreements, as I think I made clear in a previous group on the second day in Committee, there are different relations with various countries, so circumstances can arise where people can be returned to countries with which we do not have a formal returns agreement. I can write to the noble Lord in more detail on that subject.
Lord German (LD)
I thank the Minister for his answer. It would be helpful to know whether the matter of capacity of the two places is just unknown or whether it has not been concluded yet. If that is the case, I presume that the Minister could tell me at some stage what the capacity is.
This has been an important debate and I am sure we will return to it on Report. On the basis of those answers, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord German
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment probes the threshold for detention.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, we now move to the second area of Clause 10, which is about the powers of detention. The clause significantly expands the current powers and use of immigration detention. It removes the current protections for vulnerable groups and the current limits on the detention of children, which offer UASCs 24 hours, children and families 72 hours, and pregnant women 72 hours. It gives extensive detention powers to the Home Secretary, away from the scrutiny of the courts, removing effective remedies to challenge unlawful or unjustified detention. That upsets the constitutional principle of the separation of powers. I am sorry that one of the lawyers has disappeared, because I would have liked to have raised the matter of the separation of powers whereby, in the past, the courts have determined the appropriateness of how long people will be detained.
The Bill says that it is for the Secretary of State, not the courts, to decide the reasonableness of the period of detention. It therefore weakens judicial scrutiny and removes a safeguard which is especially important for individuals who are particularly vulnerable to harm from prolonged detention. The Hardial Singh principles, which were established through UK case law, place limitations on the Home Office’s detention powers, so that it is for the courts to determine the reasonableness of a given period of detention. Those are the current principles under which the courts operate.
The role of the courts, including the High Court in particular, in reviewing the lawfulness of detention is critical to maintaining the rule of law fully in accordance with the role of the judiciary under the constitutional principle of the separation of powers. In respect of detention, the Bill infringes that principle. I expect that the Minister will talk about habeas corpus, but that is not about the reasonableness of detention; it is about whether it is legal to detain. Clearly, that is a distinction which makes the case I am trying to make more appropriate and important.
Amendments 58C, 58D, 63A and 63B probe the threshold for detention; my noble friend Baroness Hamwee will talk about that in a moment. Leaving out “suspects” and inserting “reasonable grounds” to believe the person meets the four criteria of Clause 2 for removal. The lower threshold of “suspects” requires no evidence; I can suspect that something is happening without evidence, except when I see what I think I am seeing in front of me. However, having a cause for “reasonable grounds” means that there has to be some evidence. It is unclear whether legal advice will be available in presenting their case for the inadmissibility of due process, especially when there will have been no judicial oversight for 28 days, under the Bill.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, I would like to accept the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord German, as another lawyer, to address the Hardial Singh principles and habeas corpus, but since, on my reading of the Bill, they arise under Clauses 11 and 12 respectively, I think it might be best to reserve that treat for another day. I do have a question about Clause 10, which I candidly admit I do not find the easiest to understand. The Bar Council, in its briefing prepared by immigration practitioners far more expert than me, states that the powers already exist to detain any individual who is suspected to be subject to the Clause 2 removal duty, that Clause 10 does not provide for any additional persons to be detained, and that the purpose of the clause is simply to remove existing protections for unaccompanied minors, families and pregnant women. Is there any more to it than that?
Baroness Mobarik (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 59, 63, 64 and 67 standing in my name. I am immensely grateful to my noble friends Lady Helic and Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham for adding their names to these amendments. I am also extremely grateful to the many children’s organisations that sent invaluable briefings and gave clarity on the subject. I refer noble Lords to the relevant interests in my name in the register.
The words “detention” and “children” have no place in the same sentence. In the case of this Bill, it can also mean the possibility of indefinite detention, as proposed by the Government. In 2010, the organisation Medical Justice coined the term “state-sponsored cruelty” in relation to children in immigration detention. Its reports highlighted the great calamity being inflicted on thousands of innocent children, with lasting and detrimental consequences, including leaving them traumatised and suicidal. This led to a deep conviction across the political spectrum that such practices were inherently wrong and that a better, more humanitarian approach had to be taken. A pledge was given in 2010 by someone seeking the office of Prime Minister—David Cameron. He pledged that, if elected as Prime Minister, child detention would end. He was true to his word, and it became part of the coalition’s programme for Government in 2010, with policy changed as soon as 2011. With the Immigration Act 2014, the routine detention of children came to an end. That was progress. It was, as one would expect, a humanitarian response to an unacceptable and cruel practice. It is therefore with some dismay and disbelief that we are seeing attempts to reverse the progress made. Almost a decade on, we are discussing the reintroduction of those measures in an even more draconian form.
This Bill creates powers to detain en masse those who arrive in the UK without permission, on or after 7 March 2023, because they are not coming directly from a country where their life and liberty are threatened. Fleeing war-torn Syria but crossing through, for example, Belgium disqualifies them. As mentioned many times, there are no legal routes to the UK for most of those seeking asylum here. Of those coming, thousands of children could face detention. This is not a random statement but one based on the Refugee Council’s careful analysis in its impact assessment of the Bill. The exact figures are available in its report, but over a three-year period it equates to around 13,000 to 15,000 children in detention per annum. We are talking about babies, toddlers, children who are victims of child trafficking, unaccompanied children and children with families—defenceless little people, many of whom have not yet learned to speak and others who may be of speaking age but have no English language. They are detained, and with no legally defined time limit to their detention. They are detained anywhere,
“in any place that the Secretary of State considers appropriate”,
and without the possibility of bail for 28 days. Needless to say, children’s and refugee organisations are aghast at what is being proposed. They are not alone. Many of us across all Benches in this House and the other place feel the same.
Let us stop and think for a moment that perhaps it is not the intention of the Home Secretary to lock up thousands of children. Perhaps we can put this down to the lack of an economic impact assessment or child’s rights impact assessment conducted by the Home Office itself. If that is the case, now is the opportunity, in Committee in this House, for my noble friend the Minister to reconsider what is being proposed. Of course it is understood that there will inevitably be very specific and limited occasions when children are detained, but the existing legislation already gives parameters for this. That is why I propose amendments to Clause 10, to retain the existing time limits of 24 hours in detention and with safeguards for unaccompanied children. Amendments on those who are with families seek to retain existing time limits so that they can be detained only for up to 72 hours, or not more than seven days where detention is personally authorised by a Minister. Importantly, this should be in short-term holding facilities or pre-departure accommodation.
Existing legislation on the detention of children, as under the Immigration Act 2014, is already in place. I ask only that the status quo be maintained. The Home Secretary may argue that by not detaining children we are creating another pull factor, but the evidence shows that there was no significant increase in the number of children seeking asylum once routine detention ended in 2011.
The question then is what the intention of the Government is if, as Prime Minister Sunak says:
“The intention of this part of the policy objective is not to detain children”.
We were given reassurances by the Minister during the Commons Report stage on 26 April that,
“we do not want to detain children. We will do so only in the most exceptional circumstances”.
There was also assurance from the Minister that the time limits
“will be as short as practically possible”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/4/23; col. 837.]
However, these tests of “most exceptional circumstances” and
“as short as practically possible”
cannot be found in the Bill. All that can be found following the Government’s amendment is a delegated power for the Home Secretary to make regulations under the negative procedure that specify circumstances for the detention of unaccompanied children. There is also a discretionary power for the Home Secretary to make regulations that specify time limits. There is no clarification in the Bill as to the length of the time limits for detention or to which unaccompanied children they might apply, or how discretion might be exercised. Moreover, the regulations may or may not specify time limits for unaccompanied children. We have no assurance in the Bill that they will. Either way, they will do nothing for children and families.
I understood from my noble friend the Minister that later in the Bill’s passage the Government propose to
“set out the new timescale under which children may be detained for the purposes of removal without judicial oversight”.—[Official Report, 10/5/23; col. 1783.]
I must ask for clarification from my noble friend. If the Government truly wish to detain children for as short as practically possible, why are they disapplying the 2014 safeguards to children affected by this Bill? These safeguards were put in place by a Conservative Prime Minister and a Conservative Home Secretary.
Given this late stage in the Bill’s passage, when do the Government propose to set out these new timescales in the Bill, and what will they be? What are the circumstances in which unaccompanied children would be detained and why can these “most exceptional circumstances” not be stated on the face of the Bill and be open to full scrutiny during its passage? Will those timescales in regulations be an absolute time limit for the detention of children, or merely a timescale for judicial oversight of that detention? As a country in which the rule of law is a pillar of our constitution, can we detain children without judicial oversight? I presume detention is for the purposes of removal but would like clarification on whether the Government are proposing child detention for other purposes. If so, can the legal basis for such detention be explained?
Verbal reassurance is completely inadequate. I am no expert but I understand that this is not the way that laws are made. Laws must be much more firmly established. They cannot just fluctuate depending on which Home Secretary is in the driving seat; that is surely a dangerous precedent. Amendments 59, 63, 64 and 67 seek to place our current safeguards for the detention of children in the Bill, so that children impacted by it need not rely on mere verbal assurance. I understand that the issue of illegal migration is complex and requires a deterrent factor so that those who genuinely qualify can be identified, and that it requires a genuine solution, but I think most here would agree that the solution being proposed is not the right one on so many levels.
We are speaking about defenceless children. I say to noble Lords that it may be difficult for us to think back to our six year-old selves, so let us think about our children or grandchildren, who have neither the physical strength to defend themselves nor the verbal sophistication. We have a moral obligation to ensure that we protect the rights of these most vulnerable human beings.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I support these amendments generally, in particular those in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik—it is a pleasure to follow her powerful speech. I have added my name to Amendments 60 and 65.
It was to the Conservative-led coalition Government’s credit that they ended the routine detention of children and replaced it with strict limits. It is thus inexplicable, as the noble Baroness said, that the present Conservative Government should choose to reverse that policy. Prior to that reversal, the Royal College of General Practitioners, together with other royal colleges, published an intercollegiate briefing paper which described the
“significant harms to the physical and mental health of children and young people in the UK who are subjected to administrative immigration detention”.
It concluded that the immigration detention of children and their families is “harmful and unacceptable”. Among the evidence at the time was that provided by Medical Justice clinicians, who
“identified psychological harm to be caused and exacerbated by detention. Symptoms included bed wetting and loss of bowel control, heightened anxiety, food refusal, withdrawal … and persistent crying. Many children exhibited signs of developmental regression … some attempted to end their own lives”.
Today, many organisations—health, children’s and refugee—have briefed us about the likely health implications of such a reversal. To quote the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium, the effects on children’s
“physical and mental health included weight loss, sleeplessness, nightmares, skin complaints and self-harm, depression and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder”.
It also cites, as did the noble Lord, more recent collaborative evidence from Australia. The Royal College of Psychiatrists warns of the likely damaging impact on child mental and physical health of
“the restriction of movement, lack of community exposure, and limited access to health and educational services”
associated with detention. The Independent Advisory Panel on Deaths in Custody, a non-departmental public body, has warned the Home Secretary that this is
“a group who are particularly vulnerable, including in respect of mental ill-health, self-harm, and suicide due to trauma caused by dislocation from family”.
It also emphasises
“the link between the indefinite nature of detention and feelings of uncertainty and hopelessness, which can increase the risk of suicidality”.
A group of people with lived experience of the asylum system who advise Doctors of the World have written an open letter to Peers which speaks of their particular concern about the detention of children and pregnant women, whose plight I think we will debate shortly. However, more generally on the basis of their experience they write that
“some of us start shaking when detention centres are mentioned, or crying when watching the news about this Bill”.
The Children’s Commissioner has expressed deep concern at the prospect of children being detained for significant periods of time. She has not been reassured by the government amendment—mentioned by the noble Baroness—which does not specify any time limits or cover children who are with their families. Can the Minister tell us what steps will be taken to ensure that children are detained for as short a period as possible, as he assured us they would be? Also, what is his estimate of the numbers of children in detention as a result of this change of policy, in the absence of an impact assessment?
The Children’s Commissioner points out that Article 37 of the UNCRC is clear that children must be detained for as short a time as possible. UNICEF makes the point even more strongly, warning that the broad discretion on the detention of children provided by the Bill
“is not compatible with international standards”
and
“would not comply with the principle of the best interests of the child”.
Some, including the Committee on the Rights of the Child, have gone so far as to argue that Article 37 means that children should simply not be detained at all in an immigration context. Whether or not one accepts that interpretation, it is clear that the powers given to the Home Secretary in Clause 11 once again contravene a key international convention.
Although the Chief Inspector of Prisons’ report published yesterday, mentioned earlier by the noble Lord, Lord German, welcomed some improvements in the short-term holding facilities in Kent, it noted:
“Children were detained for far too long at all sites”.
During the previous six months:
“Detention records indicated that 337 children had been held in breach of the statutory 24-hour time limit”,
with one held for just over three days. It notes that some particularly vulnerable children were held for too long, giving the example of a 17 year-old girl with a 10 month-old baby—conceived, she said, following rape—who was held from 11.30 am and then overnight, for nearly 24 hours. If this is already happening, I dread to think what the situation will be like if Clause 10 reaches the statute book.
The incentives—pull factor—argument used by Ministers in their attempt to justify this retrograde policy would be laughable if the implications for children’s well-being and best interests were not so serious.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 59, 63, 64 and 67. I believe these are measured and proportionate steps to preserve existing safeguards around child detention—safeguards introduced by a Conservative Government.
Child detention must only ever be a last resort. That is a clear requirement, as many have said, of Article 37 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which also requires that detention be for the shortest appropriate time. Article 22 requires states to ensure that children seeking refugee status receive “protection and humanitarian assistance”. I hope and believe that these principles will be recognised and shared across your Lordships’ Committee.
There is strong evidence that the mental and physical health impacts of detention on children are severe. For refugee children, often escaping from traumatic circumstances, detention can further compound their trauma. Detention separates children from their peers, interrupts their education, exposes them to violence and denies them the safe, loving and supportive environment that children need to develop and thrive, and which is their right. Detention undermines parental authority and strains the parent-child relationship. This lasts well beyond the period of detention itself. Even short spells in detention can cause trauma and long-term mental health risks for children. When we detain refugee children, we should know that we are making their future lives and integration into society even harder.
My noble friends in government may have said that they recognise these impacts and do not want to detain children, but I am afraid that, as written, this is precisely what the Bill will do. My noble friend Lady Mobarik has explained the existing limits and how the Bill would change them. To reiterate: the detention powers in the Bill would apply to all migrant children and could see them routinely detained in any location for an indefinite period. This is simply not in line with the principle of child detention as a limited last resort.
We know that the immigration system is overstretched. As such, we can reliably expect every time limit and latitude granted to immigration officials by the Bill to be exploited to the full. Therefore, we must make certain that children’s rights and the limits on their detention are guaranteed in law. It is not good enough for my noble friend the Minister to say that child detention should be exceptional. The law must make it exceptional.
There are some problems which new laws can solve. There are other times when new laws will have no effect—or such serious side-effects that they are entirely disproportionate to the problem. If the Government do not feel that they can regulate immigration and asylum without locking up children for extended periods, that is indicative of a broken system. It is not a problem that is resolved by detaining children.
There is no evidence that the introduction of the existing limits on child detention have led to an increase in illegal immigration. There is no reason to think that removing these limits will improve the Government’s ability to control immigration and prevent the dangerous channel crossings. Exposing children to greater risk of harm, with no guarantee of preventing harm, is not a step we should accept.
The existing limits on child detention, brought in after careful consideration by the Conservative Government, meet the practical need that sadly exists. They ensure that detention is strictly controlled and time-limited, as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child requires. They mitigate the harm that detention causes. They make detention the last resort. That is what we must retain, and I urge noble Lords to support these amendments.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I remember well when the detention of children was ended by legislation. I visited Cedars, the property—I do not like the term “facility” in this connection—near Gatwick that was used for two or three days before the removal of families who were going to be removed and were at the end of the argument, if you like. What was particularly notable to me were the facilities for the children, and the support that was given to them, who were accommodated there for a very short time, to help them prepare to go back to a country that they may or may not have remembered—indeed, that they may not have ever lived in. It suffused the whole place and was really admirable. You only had to walk into the place to see the equipment and toys, and the information that was set out, as well as the work being done by social workers to support the children concerned. There were no families there at that point; the property used to allow visitors only on days when it knew that no families would be in residence.
I have a number of amendments in this group. The first is Amendment 59A, which seeks to probe the “discretion” given to the Secretary of State in making regulations regarding the detention of unaccompanied children. Amendment 64A is a similar amendment. The reason for my tabling this amendment is to understand whether the envisaged discretion can be exercised to extend the circumstances specified in an earlier part of the clause or to narrow those circumstances.
I discovered a possible answer to this when looking at my next amendment, Amendment 61B, which would provide for the affirmative procedure. Amendment 64C is a similar amendment. I tabled this amendment out of pure instinct that there should be an affirmative procedure, not a negative one. I subsequently discovered that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, with considerably more logic than I bring to the matter, recommended the affirmative procedure. I quote its report:
“The Memorandum explains that the negative procedure is considered appropriate because ‘the effect of any regulations is to limit the circumstances in which an unaccompanied child may be detained or the duration of detention for the purposes of removal’. In our view, this explanation is misconceived”.
That is very much committee speak for, “We really disagree”. The report went on:
“The regulation making power can only be viewed as a limiting power from the perspective of the Bill as introduced into the House of Commons which conferred an unfettered power to detain unaccompanied children”.
However, amendments were then made in the Commons, so
“no such unfettered power of detention exists in the Bill as introduced into the House of Lords. It is the regulations alone which will specify the circumstances in which unaccompanied children will be capable of being detained, in the absence of which there is no power to detain such children. Given the importance and sensitivity of the subject matter, we consider that the affirmative resolution procedure should apply”.
As I say, the committee approached this with considerably more logic and power than I was planning to bring to it.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendments 59, 63, 64 and 67 which, as has been demonstrated, have strong support from all quarters of this Chamber. It was the intention of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham to speak to these amendments but he is unable to be in the Chamber tonight.
I believe that the strength of opposition to any change in the current detention limits for both accompanied and unaccompanied children is because it is one of the most alarming and unedifying provisions in the Bill. Ministers have set out what they see as the need to detain children for immigration purposes in order to ensure that we do not inadvertently create incentives for people smugglers to target vulnerable individuals. Were this the case, then there would be a case for considering some sort of remedy. However, yet again we have been provided with no evidence that this is the case.
Building an asylum system with deterrence diffused throughout, as described by His Majesty’s Government, has led to this inappropriate proposal to restart detaining children, potentially for an unlimited period. As the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, said, it was a Government led by the party currently in office who took the brave decision to end the routine detention of children. That was against significant departmental pressure to retain the practice. How have we arrived, just 10 years later, at the conclusion that the well-being and welfare of children can now be sacrificed in consequence of the need to control migration?
In a rare admission to an evidential base for policy, on Monday the Minister referred to most persons deemed children in these categories being around the ages of 16 and 17. I accept his assertion on this point. However, as was said then, some children as young as 10 are involved.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, elegantly set out the impacts of detention of children. Studies show that the inescapable institutional nature of detention is traumatic for children and detrimental to the child’s physical and mental development. The Government are fully aware of the damaging impact of detention on children. I quote from one small section of the Home Office’s Assessing Age guidance, published only this March:
“Failure to adhere to the legal powers and policy on detaining children can have very significant consequences, for example … detention can be extremely frightening for a child, with their perception of what they might experience potentially informed by previous negative experiences of detention”.
It needs to be said explicitly that the Government will be sanctioning an intolerable level of emotional distress for the most vulnerable children. Understandably, a child will ask themselves, “What must be wrong with me to have been subjected to such conditions?”.
The Prime Minister stated that the Government’s objective behind the Bill is not the detention of children. None the less, that is what the Bill does. Given the Prime Minister’s just objective, why has the 2014 requirement that child detention be for the shortest time possible been expressly removed? In the year to March 2023, more than 8,000 children entered the UK who would meet Clause 2 conditions and who therefore could be detained indefinitely. In the first three years of the Bill’s operation, this may mean that up to 25,000 children will be deprived of their liberty. Should the deterrent effect of the Bill—about which we currently have no modelling whatever—fail, surely the 2014 requirement must be retained.
The Home Secretary bears a legal duty to safeguard children. Home Office guidance makes clear that this duty requires a demonstration of fair treatment that meets the same standard that a British child would receive. Would we tolerate the Bill’s proposals for our own children or grandchildren?
I welcome the amendments made in this area in the other place, but they do not go far enough. Legislating for the option to place limits on detention and for these limits not to be specified in the Bill is simply not adequate. It is an area that cannot remain entirely at the discretion of a Secretary of State, and children must have a means of challenging the lawfulness of a decision. Also, there have been no equivalent provisions for children within families. Why is one child different from another? Children will be detained after they have fled unimaginable horrors at home or been trafficked against their will. Children will be born in detention and others will have their futures shaped by it. It is the hope on these Benches that we are better than this and know what is right, having banished this immoral practice before. It will take real courageous leadership to change course, but we must. There is concern among my brother and sister bishops about the state of the nation’s soul if we tread so easily down this path.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, that was a powerful intervention by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, whom it is a privilege to follow. I pick up a point he made a few moments ago about the amendments that were passed on Report in another place. Like him, I welcome those amendments but do not believe they go far enough. Nevertheless, the House of Commons recognised in those amendments that the power to detain unaccompanied children under the Bill should be exercised only in the circumstances specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State. Those regulations may include a time limit on such detentions, but the Bill neither requires nor establishes what other restrictions on detention will be put in place.
This is why the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made about the use of the affirmative resolution is so important. As things stand, the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was right to say that, given the importance and the sensitivity of the subject matter, if regulations are made concerning the detention of children, the affirmative resolution procedure should apply. I hope that, when the Minister responds, he will deal specifically with that point and perhaps discuss with us how Clause 10 might be amended to take into account what the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee suggested.
I turn now to the substantive points made in the wonderful speeches by the noble Baronesses, Lady Mobarik and Lady Helic, from the Conservative Benches. I hope that the Government will take into account the arguments that they have placed before your Lordships tonight. There is an echo of what they said in the evidence from the UK Committee for UNICEF, to which I referred in an earlier intervention, which said this about Clause 10, permitting the detention of children both unaccompanied and in families:
“This is not compatible with international standards and also risks undermining the great progress that the UK has achieved in working to end immigration detention of children since 2010”.
That point was made eloquently by both noble Baronesses, who do not want to see the clock turned back.
Whatever limits on the detention of children are made in regulations issued by the Secretary of State, they are unlikely to be sufficient to meet the requirements of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 37(b) of the convention establishes the general principle that a child may be
“deprived of … liberty … only as a … last resort and for the shortest … period of time”.
The UK Committee for UNICEF says:
“Two relevant UN Committees have stated that the possibility of detaining children as a measure of last resort … is not applicable in immigration proceedings as it would conflict with the principle of the best interests of the child and the right to development … The Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment has stated that ‘within the context of administrative immigration enforcement … the deprivation of liberty of children based on their or their parents’ migration status is never in the best interests of the child, exceeds the requirement of necessity, becomes grossly disproportionate and may constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of migrant children’”.
The power to detain unaccompanied children pending removal or a decision on whether to grant them leave to remain would no longer be subject to the 24-hour time limit and other protections currently provided in Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971. The Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, noted that this time limit was established by law
“because widespread evidence showed the long-lasting damage that detention has on children’s lives”.
The Government have stated that the detention of unaccompanied children will be
“for the shortest possible time in appropriate detention facilities with relevant support provisions in place”.
In an echo of what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said earlier, I simply press the Minister to say what that word “appropriate” actually means. Please spell it out, because it has no definition as things stand and we are being asked to agree to something pretty awesome in this Bill tonight. That is why the speeches by the noble Baronesses, Lady Mobarik and Lady Helic, are so important and the Government should take proper note of them.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, at this hour, I do not propose to repeat anything that has been said, so splendidly and excellently, in relation to children, save to say that it is good news that, as the Minister told us, there are no unaccompanied children currently being detained. But that does not mean that they will not turn up next week, and there will certainly be unaccompanied children in the future.
I will say something very briefly about Amendments 76B and 78A on modern slavery from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I refer to my involvement in various aspects of modern slavery, which I set out earlier. I am very concerned, because it is intended that victims of modern slavery who have got through the first part of “reasonable grounds” ought, under the NRM, to be given the appropriate support. The support provided when they get to that stage of the NRM is generally very good, but none of it, as far as I can see, would be available to those detained by the Home Office under the Bill. That would be a huge deprivation to people who, by definition as having been trafficked, and likely to have been trafficked as well as enslaved, will have already suffered very greatly. This is really an extraordinary and another very cruel move of this Government.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of Amendment 59 and its accompanying amendments. We have heard from many tonight about the impact that detention has on children; I do not need to repeat that. We heard on Monday from my noble friend the Minister, making the case against creating loopholes in this legislation. I understand his reasons for that, but, like the group that follows, this amendment is about detention and not the other powers in the Bill. We also heard on Monday from the Minister that we cannot evidence what is yet to happen. Of course we cannot, but we can look at what has happened before in this area. When routine child detention was ended in 2011, there was no proportional increase in children claiming asylum.
We all remember the situation before the current protection was in place, in Yarl’s Wood and elsewhere. I remember the campaign back in 2010, which garnered support from hundreds of parliamentarians and parliamentary candidates across the political and professional spectrum. I remember the pledges of all political parties to end child detention if elected, and I remember the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, delivering on that commitment. There remains widespread cross-party support for not returning to child detention and for maintaining the status quo of the current protections.
At Second Reading, four weeks ago today, my noble friend the Minister said that later in the passage of the Bill the Government would set out the new timescale under which children may be detained. That is very much welcome. It is clear from tonight’s debate that that detail is needed. I hope that this report will be simpler and quicker to produce than the oft-raised impact assessment. Is there any update on when this timescale will come, and can my noble friend confirm that we will see it before Report?
The troubling situation that we are seeing in our immigration and asylum system—the small boats, the backlog in processing, and the lack of broader safe and legal routes—was not caused by the lack of detention of children, and nor will it be solved by reversing our long-standing policy against child detention. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will consider accepting these amendments.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 60 and 65 in my name. I thank my noble friend Lord German and the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister of Burtersett and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for adding their names to these amendments.
Because of the lateness of the hour, I will not add to the very powerful speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, and give all the reasons why increasing child detention time limits is a bad thing to do. However, I want to go back to what so many noble Lords have asked during this Committee stage: where is the evidence that this is required? The Government have not given any evidence or any reason why 24 hours-plus is required. Since the time limits for unaccompanied children were introduced back in 2014, there has been no empirical evidence and no indication of problems that have arisen which have caused either a pull factor or a push factor for child migration to this country. What is the problem? For a change of policy of this significance, which affects some of the most vulnerable children in the world, the scale of the problem and what problem this will solve have to be put before this House.
We could make the comment that so many noble Lords have, and which I am sure the Minister might: in due course, it will be in the impact assessment. However, the real issue is this. When the Minister stands up at the Dispatch Box, the reason and evidence for this, and the problem it is going to solve, need to be placed before your Lordships, otherwise we cannot in any conscience extend the detention limits.
It was a great part of our history when the Deputy Prime Minister in the coalition Government, Nick Clegg, insisted that children, for immigration purposes, should not be detained, and the Conservative partners in that coalition Government agreed. Noble Lords can see that nothing has changed, so the Minister has to explain what the problem is, what has changed and what problem this will solve.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and to speak specifically to the amendments in this group to which I have attached my name and to the general tenor of this. I did consider not rising to speak at all, because the incredibly powerful speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, and her proposition that the words “detention” and “children” do not belong in the same sentence, can be said to sum up all of this debate.
However, I did want to give voice to someone else in this debate—the voice of a nine year-old who was held in immigration detention previously in the UK before the laws were changed. When asked how detention made her feel, this nine year-old said very simply, “Sad and angry. Feel like screaming or breaking something”. That is a nine year-old, talking about the kind of experience that we could again be subjecting children to in this country if the Bill goes through.
To put that in terms of a 2009 briefing paper from the Royal College of GPs, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, and the Faculty of Public Health:
“Reported child mental health difficulties include emotion and psychological regression, post-traumatic stress disorder … clinical depression and suicidal behaviour.”
A more recent paper, published in 2023 by Tosif et al, entitled Health of Children Who Experienced Australian Immigration Detention, said it showed devastating impacts on children’s physical and mental health and well-being and on their parents’ parenting capabilities. I wanted to allow that voice to be heard and to share that medical reference.
I just want to make one final reflection. There is a hashtag I use on Twitter quite often, #CampaigningWorks. Sometimes people say, “Well, it should have worked indefinitely. Why do we have to fight this same battle again?” I think that what the Government have got this evening is a very clear message that this battle has been fought before. We have learned a huge amount and got all the evidence from last time, and it is going to be fought again, even harder, from all sides of your Lordships’ House, to stop this element of child detention and to stop this Bill going through.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow a number of the contributions to this debate. I shall concentrate on Amendments 59, 63, 64, and 67 by the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik. These, along with some others, are the most important amendments in this group, and we support what she has said.
I am a proud Labour politician, but I am not someone who thinks a Conservative Government have never done anything that deserves recognition or praise. The Modern Slavery Act is one such thing; the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and I do a lot of work with respect to modern slavery, and we know that to be the case. Another, under the prime ministership of David Cameron, was the ending of child detention for immigration purposes. That Government —to be fair, they were a coalition Government—deserved an awful lot of credit for that, since it was an affront to our country that it was happening in the first place.
So it is a great surprise to us to see this Government, in their desperation to do something about the small boats crossing—which we all want to see something done about—driving a coach and horses through that. I would have thought they would have said, “This is something we are proud of. This is what we stood up for. Whatever measures we take to try to deal with small boats, we will not abandon that principle”. I know the Minister will say that the Government made a concession in the other place and came forward with a regulation-making power that will allow exceptions to be made and so forth, but that is not good enough.
The noble Baroness’s amendments are supported by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, my noble friend Lady Lister and many others, and I hope the Government listen. Whatever else we would wish to see done in order to tackle the problem that we face with respect to small boats crossing the channel—and there is a problem—I do not think any of us want to see children used as one of the ways of doing that. To be fair, I do not believe the Government would wish that either, but the fact is that the legislation as it stands means that unaccompanied children will be detained, and most of us find that unacceptable. That needs to change. We need to go back to the situation that existed before, as suggested by the amendments by the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik.
I have a specific question for the Minister. Many of us received the briefing from the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium, which says:
“If the Government’s intention is to detain and remove those arriving on small boats, then more than 13,000 children may face detention annually under this government proposal”.
Is it wrong? If so, it is incumbent on the Minister, if not now, to look at the way in which the organisation has arrived at that figure and tell us why it is wrong. Thirteen thousand children annually facing detention under the Government’s proposals is a significant number of children.
If that figure is wrong—this goes back to the problem of the impact assessment—then what figure are the Government using? The Minister says, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, referenced this, that there are no unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in detention at present. What assumptions are the Government working on here? They must have some figures somewhere for their expectation of the number of children who will be impacted by the proposed legislation as it stands. It would be helpful for us all to know what the Government’s assumption is of the number of unaccompanied children who may be detained as a result of these measures. Presumably they have scoped out the regulations that may be necessary which the Secretary of State may pass in future, so what is the number that the Home Office is working towards?
Secondly, what is the number of children who would be detained under the measures as currently drafted in this Bill who are with a family? I think it would be extremely helpful to all of us to have some sort of understanding of the number of children the Government are expecting their proposals to impact.
We have heard movingly from the noble Baronesses, Lady Mobarik and Lady Helic, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark about all the moral reasons for which we should not proceed with the Bill as it is currently laid out in respect of children. I think that the country would be in a situation where it would say to our Government that, whatever they do to control small boats, not to do it at the expense of children.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, Clause 10 is an integral part of ensuring the success of this Bill, both as a deterrent and as a means of ensuring that the Home Secretary can comply with the duty to make arrangements for removal. The statutory powers to detain are spread across several different pieces of immigration legislation, such as the Immigration Act 1971 and the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The provisions in this clause create new powers that will enable the detention of illegal migrants to establish whether the new duty to remove applies and to promptly remove those eligible from the UK. Many of the amendments in this group seek to limit these detention powers in one way or another, impacting our ability swiftly to remove those to whom the duty applies.
Amendments 58C, 58D, 63A and 63B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord German, probe the threshold for detention and in effect seek to raise it by replacing the current test based on an immigration officer or Secretary of State suspecting the relevant matter with a test that requires an immigration officer to have “reasonable grounds for suspecting.” To deliver the objectives of this Bill, our detention powers need to enable detention of illegal migrants to ascertain whether someone falls within the duty to remove, and these amendments seek to reduce our ability so to do.
The issue of time limits is the subject of Amendments 60 and 65, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and Amendments 59 and 63 tabled by my noble friend Lady Mobarik and co-signed by my noble friend Lady Helic. The detention powers in the Bill are fundamental to our approach, and here, as elsewhere, we need a robust and uniform scheme that broadly applies to all and does not allow the system to be gamed, for example by adults pretending to be children, or provide scope for the people smugglers to exploit any exceptions or carve-outs. The Bill will create new detention powers specific to all migrants subject to the duty to remove being introduced in this Bill. These new powers will not be time-limited. However, in line with our other existing immigration detention powers, detention will be limited to a period of time that is reasonably necessary for the statutory purpose to be caried out. The new detention powers will not be subject to the same statutory limitations as existing detention powers to ensure the power can apply more widely.
We recognise the particular vulnerability of unaccompanied children, and therefore the Bill provides that the statutory detention powers may only be exercised to detain an unaccompanied child in circumstances prescribed in regulations by the Secretary of State, such as, but not limited to, for the purpose of family reunion or where removal is to a safe country of origin. We will set out, in due course, having reflected on debates in this House and the other place, a new timescale under which genuine children may be detained for the purposes of removal without judicial oversight—
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Will those regulations be available, even in draft form, before Report?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I will certainly take that request back to the department.
Along with a new timescale under which genuine children may be detained for the purposes of removal without judicial oversight, the Bill will also allow the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying time limits to be placed on the detention of unaccompanied children for the purpose of removal, if required. I would remind my noble friends Lady Mobarik, Lady Helic and Lady Sugg that unaccompanied children are not subject to the duty to remove and the power to remove them will be exercised only in the limited circumstances we have already described. For the most part, unaccompanied children will not be detained under the provisions of the Bill but will instead be transferred to local authority care—that care which the Committee has broadly agreed is the correct place for these children to be located.
In answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I do not recognise the figure of 13,000 detained unaccompanied children in the NGO report to which he referred. Those statistics did not of course include any allowance for the deterrence effect of the measures in the Bill.
Amendment 73, put forward by the noble Lord, Lord German, seeks to introduce time limits on detention that apply at large, not just to detention under the powers conferred by the Bill. An absolute bar on detention of all children and a 28-day time limit on detention of adults would significantly impair the effectiveness of our enforcement powers. Such a time limit is likely to encourage individuals to frustrate immigration processes to the point where the time limit is exceeded, necessitating their release, which would then significantly inhibit our ability to remove those who have no right to be here and are subject to the duty. I agree that immigration detention cannot, and should not, be indefinite; as we will come on to with later clauses, the legislation places clear limitations on the duration of detention and provides for judicial scrutiny of continued detention. We judge the existing safeguards provided for in respect of existing and new detention powers to be sufficient.
Amendments 61B and 64C, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, relate to the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Committee. I am grateful for the work of the Delegated Powers Committee in its careful scrutiny of the Bill. We are considering the report, published just before the Whitsun Recess, and will respond ahead of Report stage.
Turning to Amendments 74, 75 and 76, which relate to the detention of vulnerable persons, I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that the existing adults at risk policy, which I discussed earlier, will be updated to take account of the provisions in the Bill, and will act as a safeguard when detention decisions are made in respect of such persons. This statutory policy requires that evidence of a person’s vulnerability be balanced against immigration factors when considering whether detention is appropriate in their particular case. Finally, I remind the noble Baroness that under the terms of Section 59 of the Immigration Act 2016, revisions to the statutory guidance must be laid in draft before each House and then brought into force by regulations subject to the negative procedure, so there will be an opportunity for this House to scrutinise the necessary changes.
There are no exemptions from immigration detention for any particular groups of people. Amendment 76B, again tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, seeks to create an exemption to immigration detention for potential victims of modern slavery. When decisions are currently made regarding detention or continued detention, potential victims of modern slavery are considered under the existing adults at risk in immigration detention policy.
To sum up, the Government recognise that unaccompanied children are particularly vulnerable. That is why we amended the Bill in the other place to place limitations on their detention under the powers conferred by the Bill. For all others caught by the duty to remove in Clause 2, we believe it is appropriate for the Bill to provide for a single legislative framework for their detention, with tailored provision being made in our adults at risk statutory guidance. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord, Lord German, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Before the Minister sits down, can I clarify that the 13,000 figure was not just in respect of unaccompanied children? It included families with children.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, it has been an interesting debate in which it appears there has been one speaker against and everybody else in favour of changing the Government’s proposal.
To sum up the discussion, with the exception of the Minister, the key issues have been the impact of detention on children, that this is a backward step, that it is not in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and that no evidence is given of a sufficiently robust nature to state the objectives of these clauses. To sum it up in a single phrase, “We are going to lock children up to deter the boats”. The rationale of locking up children has just been put to one side. It is a backward step. Therefore, I am sure we will return to these matters at the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member's explanatory statement
The effect of this amendment is that section 60 of the Immigration Act 2016 (which limits the detention of pregnant women normally to 72 hours under existing powers of immigration detention) will apply to the new powers of detention created by Clause 10 of the Bill.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I will also speak briefly to Amendment 70, which is also in my name. Before I start, I wish to put on the record my protest at the fact that we are debating these important issues after midnight. It is disgraceful.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I am very grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, who sends her apologies that she cannot be here, but who asked me to underline her strong support. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, for her support for both amendments, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti for each signing one of them. I am grateful to Women for Refugee Women and Medical Justice for their briefings on the amendments, but I feel we really cannot do them justice at this hour.
Amendment 68 does no more than restore the status quo ante, restricting the detention of pregnant women to 72 hours, extendable up to a week with ministerial authorisation. This restriction was introduced by the Immigration Act 2016 thanks to the strong opposition in your Lordships’ House to the detention of pregnant women.
Prior to that, there was no time limit and, although policy stated that pregnant women should be detained only in exceptional circumstances, in practice they were all too often detained in far from exceptional circumstances, and often for long periods. The Bill would return us to those dark days.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who has expertly outlined why these amendments are needed. My good friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester has added her name in support of Amendments 68 and 70, and regrets she is not able to be here to give her support in person. I share her concern about the impact of detention on pregnant women in particular, impact which we know is considerable. Others will rightly draw attention to the impact on children, and the suggestion of the use of force against either group is unspeakable. His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons advises that there
“is no safe way to use force against a pregnant woman, and to initiate it for the purpose of removal is to take an unacceptable risk”.
I turn now to Amendment 68, which is a preservation amendment. This simply asks that the Government maintain the status quo. In 2016, the Immigration Act introduced a 72-hour time limit on pregnant women’s detention, which saw the numbers detained drop from 99 in 2014 to just seven in 2021. It is alarming to think that we may see numbers rise, and the consequences are disturbing. According to research by Women for Refugee Women,
“women seeking asylum who are pregnant are an extremely vulnerable group. Many have experienced trauma such as rape, trafficking and torture, and have significant physical and mental health issues”.
I appeal to the Minister to consider also the well-being of the unborn child involved. The Royal College of Midwives has said:
“The detention of pregnant asylum seekers increases the likelihood of stress, which can risk the health of the unborn baby”.
Antenatal care and support provided to women who are detained has often fallen short of the care normally available to pregnant women.
Research by Medical Justice found that in Yarl’s Wood, women often missed antenatal appointments. Some had no ultrasound scans while detained, and women did not have direct access to a midwife and could not request visits. In recent years we have seen the devastating consequences of holding pregnant women in prisons. These facilities, including detention centres, are on the whole not set up to provide the necessary health and welfare oversight. This violates women’s dignity and puts lives at risk. The indefinite detention of pregnant migrant women, who are often extremely vulnerable and the victims of abuse and trafficking, is a very worrying and regressive move. The implication that force may be used against them, and against children, is beyond words. I hope wholeheartedly that the Committee supports these amendments and that His Majesty’s Government give them the consideration they so justly merit.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
I thank noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for putting forward Amendments 68 and 70, to which I have added my name. I also support Amendment 76A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. Let me address Amendments 68 and 76A first.
I made a strong case at Second Reading as to why pregnant women should not be detained. I followed this up with a letter to the Minister. In the letter, which I sent on 19 May, I acknowledged that the Minister has a difficult job in trying to tackle illegal migration but inquired about the following points. I asked about what the Minister had said in his opening comments at Second Reading. He said:
“More than 45,000 people came here by small boat last year. The overwhelming majority of arrivals were adult males under the age of 40.”—[Official Report, 10/5/23; col. 1781.]
This suggests that there were only a small number of women. However, I asked for clarification to understand fully the numbers. If the number was indeed small, then the number of pregnant women would have been negligible. I therefore asked also for evidence of how many pregnant women had entered the UK illegally and whether there had been sharp rise in the figures. I asked this because if not detaining pregnant women was going to act as a magnet, we would have seen the sharp rise suggested by the Government. I chased up a response yesterday and was informed that a draft letter has been prepared and is going through final checks, and I will be receiving it soon. I wonder whether there could be a response today to my points.
It seems obvious that there are probably only a few pregnant migrant women coming to the UK every year, but of course I am happy to be corrected on that point. If the Government are trying to make a case that not detaining them would act as an incentive for more smugglers to bring pregnant women into the country or act as a magnet, that does not stack up. What assessment has been made to arrive at that conclusion?
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Good morning, my Lords. I hope all Members of the Committee—it is a large group; larger than usual, for which I give credit to the Committee and to Members opposite in particular—will remember 8 June 2023. I will always remember where I was this morning, and I hope that other noble Lords will too, because this was the morning when we began debating whether detention and force are appropriate for pregnant women and small children.
I am very privileged to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, with her various well-put medical and other reasons why it is not a good idea to use force against pregnant women. It seems that this is now necessary in the context of debating amendments to the Bill. It would seem that there is the edge of depravity, and then there is the abyss. In the last group, we talked about detention. We now take it to its further conclusion, because in the end, a consequence of detention will sometimes be force. It is as well that we confront that, and confront it in the case of both children and, in this example, pregnant women.
Whatever our views about the basic policy here, I rather agree with the noble Baronesses in the previous group and with the speeches we have just heard that it would be appropriate for the Government to think again about this group of vulnerable people in particular, considering all the reasons that were given. Surely, whatever is said about deterrents and so on, there can be some concession to humanity, please, in relation to children and pregnant women. That will not hurt the signalling and the deterrents and so on. We cannot go on like this—and I do not just mean that we cannot go on at 12.20 am. When we were younger, hey, we used to go on all night, so we can go on all night in here; this is how we get our kicks in the Committee. However, we cannot go on degrading ourselves and our values by suggesting that there is no difference between a child or a pregnant woman and an adult, and that everybody is illegal. We need to make some restraints, just for decency, for our own sake.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, it is ironic that we are talking about detention when the Government Front Bench is trying to detain us here. What we are trying to do is our job of sensibly and calmly dealing with a Bill that has huge potential for the liberty and lives of some of the most vulnerable people in the world. It is absolutely disgraceful that, when the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, was talking about staying here all night, some on the Benches opposite, including the Government Chief Whip, thought it was funny and amusing. It is not funny and amusing to be told that we have to stay here until goodness knows what time to do our job because the Government Benches wish to rush this through at any cost as a red-wall, red-meat Bill, rather than allowing us the serious job that we have to do as Members of this House. It is an absolute disgrace.
Now that I have got that off my chest, I will speak to my Amendment 76A. It is not a probing amendment but a clear amendment that women who are pregnant should not be held in immigration detention. I see no reason for that. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, pointed out what the equality impact assessment says on pregnancy and maternity—it is absolutely enlightening:
“Data on pregnancy and maternity in relation to people who enter the UK illegally is not available”.
It is not available—there is no data. They do not know the numbers and therefore they do not know what the impact is. It continues,
“it is therefore difficult to categorically establish whether there will be indirect discrimination”.
It is not just hard to determine whether there is indirect discrimination; because of the lack of figures it is absolutely impossible to determine what the effect will be of the primary part of this legislation and whether it will act as a deterrent.
I am sure that that is what the Minister is going to tell us: that there is no data or evidence available. As the Minister said on Monday, on all the proposals:
“Obviously, as these provisions are not in force, there is no evidence of the impact of these measures. The noble Lord appears to require me to look into a crystal ball”.—[Official Report, 05/6/23; col. 1175.]
When the Minister gets up at the Dispatch Box, if he trots out the ridiculous statement that locking up pregnant women will somehow act as a major deterrent to people coming here, both the equality impact assessment and what the noble Lord, Lord Murray, said on Monday show that that is not the case.
It is for those reasons—the lack of evidence, the lack of understanding of what the impact will be, and, as other noble Lords have said in the debate, the impact it will have on both the pregnant woman and the child—I believe there is no case in a modern, civilised country to have an immigration policy position of putting pregnant women in detention.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in 1979, when I was a young Member of another place, the then Conservative Government regularly kept us there all night. When you are younger, you are quite happy to do that but I suspect it would be better—and knowing how reasonable the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip are—if we could schedule our proceedings to include at least one extra day to consider this very important Bill, but also maybe to have a morning sitting if necessary to enable those of us who are not quite as young as we once were to ensure that we can focus properly on these very important questions.
I made common cause with the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, in 2016 and it was to the credit of your Lordships’ House that, after some ping-pong and debate between both Houses, we were able to ensure that the law was changed to introduce these restrictions on the detention of pregnant women. Similarly, the decisions that were taken about children were to the credit of this House. To see these things being rolled back brings no credit to any of us and I really hope that the Minister, when he goes away from our proceedings tonight and talks again to his officials and to the Secretary of State, will recognise the strength of feeling that has been expressed in the debate already, and that the very important points that my noble friend Lady Gohir made in her excellent speech will be taken into account.
The detention of pregnant women is currently restricted, as we have heard, to 72 hours. That limit would be specifically disapplied in respect of those detained because they are or may be subject to the Clause 2 removal duty. As the Bill stands, a pregnant woman could be detained for any period—I repeat: any period—considered “reasonably necessary”. Prior to 2016, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and I argued that it was unconscionable that there was no time limit on immigration detention for pregnant women, leading to some of them being detained for weeks, even months, on end. That, inevitably, put pregnant women and their unborn babies at risk.
The Royal College of Midwives says:
“The detention of pregnant asylum seekers increases the likelihood of stress, which can risk the health of the unborn baby”.
Stephen Shaw, the former Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, mentioned earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, was emphatic. He said:
“That detention has an incontrovertibly deleterious effect on the health of pregnant women and their unborn children … I take to be a statement of the obvious”.
Back in 2016, Medical Justice told Parliament that the level of care for pregnant women
“falls short of NHS equivalence and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) standards”.
Are we seriously going to turn the clock back to those bleak times? Some of the women who will be affected will have experienced barbaric treatment, including rape, torture and trafficking. To forcibly return such women will be traumatic beyond belief for them. It will endanger their lives and the lives of the babies in their wombs, and we have no business doing it. That is why I support Amendment 68, and even at this late hour I hope that many of your Lordships on all sides of the Committee will support the noble Baroness, Lady Lister.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I begin with an apology to the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, because, had I spotted Amendment 76A, I would certainly have attached my name to it. I judge from its numbering that it was a relatively late arrival. Having addressed the detention of pregnant refugees at Second Reading, I saw that Amendments 68 and 70 had full, cross-party and non-party support—including from the Lords spiritual—so I could not attach my name to them. I certainly would have done so otherwise. The case for all these amendments—certainly for not making things any worse than they are now—has already been overwhelmingly made.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, took us gazing into the abyss; I am afraid that I am going to look even further into the abyss. I have specific questions for the Minister. Throughout these many long hours of debate, we have heard again and again that the Government are determined to remove people with great rapidity—that is, that they are going to detain them for just a few days and then remove them. We have all heard the expressions of doubt about that. I want to ask some questions about the Government’s intentions for the removal of pregnant refugees.
I have looked at the NHS guidance on travelling when pregnant; for the assistance of the Minister, the website is fitfortravel.nhs.uk. It says that flying during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy is risky because of the risk of miscarriage. It says that most commercial airlines accept pregnant travellers up to 36 weeks if it is a single pregnancy or up to 32 weeks if it is a multiple pregnancy if the pregnancy is uncomplicated and the pregnant person is in good health. This advice also notes that, in the post-partum period, the risk of deep vein thrombosis is significantly elevated. My question for the Minister, because I think that it needs to be raised in this context, is this: is it the Government’s intention to remove, presumably by flying, pregnant refugees, risking their health and that of their unborn babies?
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I have co-signed Amendment 68, which, as we have heard, would keep the existing protection of a 72-hour time limit on the detention of pregnant women for immigration purposes. I appreciate that the Minister will make a similar closing speech to the one for the previous group, but I want to make some different, practical points on pregnant women specifically. I believe that there is a case for special treatment here.
In our debates on previous groups, my noble friend the Minister warned against introducing loopholes that could be exploited. I do not believe that that will be the case here. This is a narrow amendment. It does not seek to exempt pregnant women from the other provisions in this Bill, such as the duty to remove. It simply ensures that their and their babies’ health will not be put at risk by being detained with no time limit.
There is no evidence to support the suggestion that maintaining the time limit will result in more pregnant women crossing the channel. Women’s groups and experts working in this area do not believe that it will increase the number of pregnant women making these journeys, so I do not believe that there will be an incentive effect. I am not really clear on the reasoning behind that argument. I do not think anyone is suggesting that this will incentivise women to get pregnant so that they can claim asylum. Nor will women take the decision to put themselves and their unborn baby at risk of a dangerous crossing and eventual deportation just because they will not be detained on arrival for more than 72 hours.
If the broader measures in the Bill work as the Government intend and people are swiftly removed to another country, we will not see people traffickers seeking out pregnant women to make the crossing, exploiting a loophole, because they will not be exempt from removal. The risk of the very small number of people on whom this will have an impact absconding is very low, given the desire and need for healthcare when pregnant. Further, where there is a real risk of absconding, Section 60 allows for detention to be extended with ministerial authorisation.
Despite the same arguments being made when this issue was debated in 2016, the 72-hour time limit placed on pregnant women’s detention has not had an incentivising effect on women claiming asylum. Unfortunately, the Home Office does not collect specific statistics on the number of pregnant women claiming asylum, but the number of women claiming asylum annually prior to the time limit was about 7,000. This figure has stayed broadly the same post time limit; there has not been any increase.
Secondly, there is the argument that there will be sufficient protection for pregnant women thanks to existing or updated guidance. I do not believe that that will be the case either. The existing “adults at risk” level 3 does provide some guidance but, as we saw before the Immigration Act 2016, with just guidance, pregnant women were being detained on a far more routine basis than they should be.
During the passage of the Immigration Act 2016, the original proposition was for pregnant women to be protected through guidance but ultimately it was recognised that that just would not be robust enough, and we saw the introduction of the time limit. I appreciate what my noble friend the Minister said in the previous group about updating the guidance following this Bill, but the gap between policy and practice was really only closed through the introduction of a clear time limit in primary legislation which reduced the elasticity of or room for interpretation of guidance. This protection should remain in primary legislation.
There is widespread support for this amendment from across this House, from the other place and from organisations such as the End Violence Against Women coalition, which is made up of 143 specialist women’s support services and experts, from Refuge, the largest domestic abuse organisation in the UK, from medical professionals, and from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. I will not detain your Lordships by reading out their supporter quotes but, believe me, they are very supportive. I am happy to share them at a more appropriate time.
This is a narrow amendment that would impact just a small number of vulnerable women and keep the protection against detention that pregnant women currently have. It would not create loopholes as it would not exempt women from the duty to remove. The known negative impacts of detention on pregnant women outweigh the un-evidenced—and in my view, incorrect—argument that this will incentivise women to cross in small boats.
This amendment is about protecting women, not putting them at further risk. It would maintain current protections that have been widely acknowledged as working well. If my noble friend the Minister still believes the current time limit should be removed, I would welcome an explanation of the specific reasons for that. I ask him to take into account the widespread support for this narrow amendment and to consider its merits ahead of Report.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, this has been another interesting debate in which there has been one side only, and we face a series of debates where we are looking at fact versus forecasting. All of the speakers who have entered this debate in this short and very narrow area of work have been clear about the issues, which are evidenced—the health and well-being of pregnant women, the effect on unborn children, the dangers of restraint, which have been very well explained.
We are in exactly the same position as we were on the last group. We are asked to make a decision in this Committee based on unevidenced forecasting—in fact, we heard the Minister say earlier that he cannot be expected to look into a crystal ball. That is exactly what the Government are doing here, against all the evidence.
If you think about the number of organisations that have been referred to in this short debate, we are not talking about a small, narrow area of influence; we are talking about huge numbers of organisations representing women throughout this country, human rights and every other sphere you can imagine, believing that this is the wrong way to go. It is the wrong way because we do not have any evidence that it will do the job the Government want it to do.
The Government should stop their crystal ball-gazing to which they directed our attention earlier and concentrate on the evidence they have given. If they cannot provide the evidence themselves, listen to the evidence of the world around us.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, one of the major items in the Bill is the extension of the 72-hour detention of pregnant women. Research carried out in Yarl’s Wood in 2014 found women in detention there often missed antenatal appointments, had no ultrasound and did not have direct access to a midwife.
In a government-commissioned review of immigration detention in 2016, Sir Stephen Shaw stated that
“detention has an incontrovertibly deleterious effect on the health of pregnant women and their unborn child and I take this to be a statement of the obvious”.
That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. It was after this that the 72-hour rule was implemented. It was done for a reason, and to undo it would put women and unborn children at risk of serious harm. The actual number of pregnant women in detention is low. There were nine in 2022, so I would argue—and so, I believe, would other noble Lords who have taken part in this debate—that we are talking about a low number of children. The Government’s argument that somehow, the amendments would provide an incentive are difficult to understand.
However, to the women themselves, who are pregnant, it makes a huge difference. That is accepted by experts and by every lobby group that has written to noble Lords regarding this narrow amendment.
If I was to give a prize for the best speech of this group I would give it to the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg. Her speech was very cogent and well argued. On the other hand, the prize for the most impactful speech would go to my noble friend Lady Lister, who gave a powerful and angry speech. She was also very angry that we are having this debate at this time of the morning. I hope that the Minister will hear the unanimity of view that has been expressed by all noble Lords taking part in this short debate.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, this group deals with the detention of pregnant women and the use of reasonable force to effect the detention and removal of children and pregnant women.
Amendments 68 and 76A deal with the detention of pregnant women. Before getting into the specifics, it is worth briefly reiterating some general points made by my noble friend Lord Murray when he responded to the previous group. Our aim is to ensure that no one is held in detention for longer than is absolutely necessary to effect their removal from the United Kingdom. The scheme is designed to be operated quickly and fairly, but holding people in detention is necessary to ensure that they are successfully removed under the scheme. The duty on the Home Secretary to make arrangements for the removal of all illegal entrants, save unaccompanied children, back to their home country or to a safe third country will, we calculate, send a clear message that vulnerable individuals, including pregnant women, cannot be exploited by the people smugglers facilitating their passage across the channel in small boats on the false promise of starting a new life in the United Kingdom. The only way to come to the United Kingdom for protection will be through safe and legal routes. This will take power out of the hands of the criminal gangs and protect vulnerable people.
I am happy to repeat for the benefit of the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister of Burtersett and Lady Chakrabarti, the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and my noble friend Lady Sugg that we must not create incentives for people-smuggling gangs to target pregnant women or provide opportunities for people to exploit any loopholes. I assure the Committee that pregnant women who have arrived illegally will not be removed from the United Kingdom when, based on medical assessments, they are not fit to travel. I offer that assurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Before the Minister continues, can he tell me where that will appear in writing? An assurance in the Committee at 12.43 am, is one thing, but where will that assurance be written down?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
It will be in Hansard, the official record.
The document from which the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, quoted, referring to guidance from the NHS website, provides that, with the proper precautions, most women can travel safely well into their pregnancy. However, in any event, we will remove only persons who are fit to travel.
There has never been a complete bar on the detention and/or the removal of pregnant women, such as Amendment 76A seeks to provide. The noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, referred correctly to the situation as presently advised, with a 72-hour period and a seven-day maximum detention thereafter. In answer to the noble Lord, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, and other noble Lords, that will continue to apply to women who have not arrived illegally on these shores.
Under the Bill, detention is not automatic. The Bill provides power to detain, and the appropriateness of detention will be considered on a case-by-case basis. We expect that a woman who is in the later stages of her pregnancy and who cannot be removed in the short term would not be detained, but instead released on immigration bail. That matter would of course be assessed by the body hearing the application.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, first of all, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. All, apart from the Minister, spoke in support of the amendment. I am very grateful to them for staying until this ungodly hour and not allowing the Government to chase them off, in effect, through tiredness. I know that others have not spoken, but I have felt their support anyway. People are nodding, and I thank them. I know that others who cannot stay this late have had to leave.
My noble friend Lord Ponsonby remarked on my anger that we are discussing this at such a ridiculous time. Yes, I am angry about that, but I am also angry because, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, set out very clearly, we are having to refight the battles that we fought in 2016 at some length in this House and won. It is so depressing to have to put the same arguments yet again, because the Government and Theresa May accepted them then, and we reached a compromise. That is why, although in my heart I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, because that is what I argued for in 2016, with my head I say that we have to just try to get back to where we were. There is no point trying to go further, I am afraid, although I accept what he said in principle.
I should also note that there are a whole lot of other people here who probably would not normally sit in on our Committee proceedings, and I hope they have learned something. I hope they have learned through having to listen to what we are doing to pregnant women—what their Government are doing to pregnant women. I hope they will think about it. Some of their colleagues on the government Benches might have words, perhaps, afterwards, because as my noble friend said, the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, made a very powerful case.
I thank the Minister for his response, but it was utterly disappointing. He utterly failed to engage with what his noble friend said about the vacuity of the incentives argument, and he had no other argument to put. There is no case, really, because, as she made clear, that argument does not stand up. It was very depressing and disappointing that there was no case.
I am also disappointed that a number of the questions I asked were not answered. I am not going to press them now— it is nearly 1 o’clock in the morning.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I apologise to the noble Baroness. Any oversight was entirely a failure on my part. I will review the record and revert to the noble Baroness in writing, if that is acceptable.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
It is perfectly acceptable. I was just going to suggest that the Minister do that. I do not blame him at all, because I do not imagine he is that keen on arguing this out at 1 o’clock in the morning either.
We will return to this at Report—we have to. As a number of noble Lords said, this is a narrow amendment that does not drive a coach and horses through the whole Bill, much as I hate the Bill. It would not cost the Government anything to concede to this amendment before Report, rather than forcing us to come back then and go through the whole thing again, voting for the health of pregnant women and their babies. For now, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.