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
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Mark Harper)
With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I will begin by sending my heartfelt condolences to the people of India, who, in the eastern state of Odisha on Friday, suffered the country’s deadliest rail crash in over two decades. The death toll stands at 288, with over 1,000 people injured. It was caused by the collision of two passenger trains and a stationary goods train. I have written to the Indian Rail Minister expressing our deepest sympathies, and I believe I speak for the whole House when I say that our thoughts are with the victims and their families, as well as with the emergency services as they continue to respond to the tragedy.
Turning to the question, the Government’s ambition is for a customer-focused, commercially-led industry, with the creation of Great British Railways as a new guiding mind for the sector. We are working closely with the GBR Transition Team, the wider rail sector and other Departments to move forward with reform, and I was pleased to recently announce Derby as the location of GBR’s headquarters.
Justin Madders
On behalf of Opposition Members, may I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s comments in respect of the people of India?
In the north-west, we were hoping that the formation of GBR might have been on track by now to help us deal with the chronically underperforming Avanti West Coast, but we see no sign of the legislation. Parliament certainly has the time to deal with it—we finished after a couple of hours on Tuesday—and it is certainly not a question of money, as we know £50 million has already been spent on the project. What exactly is the problem with bringing the matter before the House? Is it a lack of political will, or is it a lack of competence?
Mr Harper
The Government remain committed to GBR. As I have said, we have already announced that the HQ will be in Derby. Many of the benefits can be achieved without legislation, and we are getting on with them. It is worth noting, based on statistics published this morning by the Office of Rail and Road, that we still face a massive challenge with the rail industry: leisure is now much more important than commuting and business; and passenger revenue is still 28% down on the pre-pandemic level. A successful railway needs to change to reflect passenger demand, and that is exactly what this Government are going to deliver.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
In the absence of legislation, will my right hon. Friend consider setting up GBR as a shadow authority. That could, for example, end the unsustainable practice of costs sitting with one part of the industry and revenue with another. The rail industry has a great appetite to move forward, so will he consider something like a shadow GBR?
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend, who ably chairs the Select Committee, makes a good point. Joining up the profit and loss account, revenues, and costs can be done without legislation, and we are actively working to do that. I have tasked my officials to move at pace on this, and we are identifying where in Derby the GBR HQ will be. We will continue to deliver rail reform every day to ensure that we can respond to market conditions and have a successful, thriving railway, and I want everyone in the sector to join us in that endeavour.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is hugely frustrating that we still do not have an integrated system. Does the Secretary of State agree with me and others about the importance of projects such as the Ely area capacity improvement? When are we going to get some progress on such projects?
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman will know that we have set out a significant amount of rail investment. We will be investing £40 billion overall across the transport portfolio over the next two years, and we do have to make choices about how to spend that money sensibly. The Labour party is making unfunded spending pledges, with £44 billion on rail and, interestingly, nothing on buses or on roads.
Mr Speaker
We now come to a person who will have done 40 years tomorrow, I understand. I call Sir Edward Leigh.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Under the old British Rail, we used to have a direct train to London from Grimsby and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) through Market Rasen. I have been campaigning for that train to be reinstated for 40 years—ever since I was elected as a Member of Parliament. Sometimes I wander down from my home in the wolds and wait forlornly on the platform at Market Rasen, but the train never comes. Will the Secretary of State oblige an old campaigner and give us our train back, please?
Mr Harper
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his service in the House. This campaign may be coming to a successful conclusion. He has been working closely with the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), and we hope to be able to implement the change in the next timetable update. My hon. Friend is working carefully to ensure that none of the things that have hitherto stopped it will prevent it from happening this time. I hope that there will be a successful conclusion.
Mr Speaker
Make sure he’s not closing the station. [Laughter.] I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
I associate the Opposition with the Secretary of State’s comments. We send our thoughts and prayers to the victims of the terrible tragedy in India.
Over the past year, passengers have faced total chaos on our railways. Cancellations rose to their highest ever levels. Strikes have disrupted countless journeys, while the Transport Secretary still refuses to sit down with the unions. The fourth franchise in five years has just been brought into public ownership. And now we hear that the lucky few who actually manage to get a train will not have the luxury of using wi-fi. The Prime Minister might not be aware of this, given his preference for private jets, but will the Secretary of State at least admit that our railways are fundamentally broken?
Mr Harper
They really are not broken. If the hon. Lady looks at the numbers from the Office of Rail and Road this morning, she will see that leisure travel has rebounded very strongly, but there has been a real change in passenger demand for the railways post pandemic, which is why we need to deliver change.
As far as industrial action is concerned, there is an offer on the table that the trade union leaders need to put to their members in the democratic way in which they should operate. That is what the hon. Lady should be pushing for. She has been part of Labour Front Benchers’ efforts to make unfunded commitments, which the Institute for Fiscal Studies says will drive up taxes and inflation. Interestingly, I note that Labour has massive unfunded pledges on rail but nothing on buses and roads, the modes of transport used by the vast majority of people living in this country.
Louise Haigh
The Secretary of State has some nerve accusing Labour of tax rises and interest rate rises after his party crashed the economy last year, presided over funding cuts to buses and pushed most of the road-building projects promised in his manifesto to later down the line.
The Secretary of State’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), admitted that our rail system is broken when he first announced Great British Railways more than two years ago. The bare minimum the Secretary of State could do is bring forward the legislation his Government promised, and that industry and investors have made clear is required. It is a simple question: will he bring forward legislation to establish Great British Railways before the end of this Parliament—yes or no?
Mr Harper
It is interesting to note that the hon. Lady is interested in what investors think. I thought her policy was to nationalise the rail industry and take it away from investors. People will have noted that with great interest.
We remain committed, as I said in answer to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), to moving forward on delivering Great British Railways. Much of it can be delivered without legislation. Legislation plans will be set out in the King’s Speech in the autumn, in the usual way. We are getting on with making sure that we have a rail system that reflects the needs of passengers, post pandemic, as we deliver the transport system across the country, delivering economic growth.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Huw Merriman)
We are currently working with Network Rail to assess over 300 stations nominated for Access for All, and we aim to make a determination later in 2023 for funding beyond 2024. I hope to be in a position to announce the list of successful projects later this year, in anticipation of securing further funding in the following year.
Afzal Khan
I, too, associate myself with the Secretary of State’s comments about the rail crash in India.
The response from the Department for Transport has always been “later”, “soon” or “in due course”, so I ask the same simple question I have asked every rail Minister since 2017: will the hon. Gentleman come to Manchester to meet Levenshulme station users to talk about access and accessibility?
Huw Merriman
I have recently come back from a very positive trip to Manchester, where I met stakeholders. I have no doubt that I will be there again soon, and I would be very happy to call in on the hon. Gentleman and his campaign. We have delivered step-free access to more than 200 stations through Access for All, and we have made improvements at 1,500 other stations. I look forward to working with him and his project, which I will visit next time I am up.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Huw Merriman)
Under the current national rail contracts, train operators earn a fee linked to their performance on addressing key passenger priorities, including punctuality, reliability, service quality and customer satisfaction, as well as revenue growth. While the new passenger service contract is developed, my Department is looking to introduce a stronger incentive for operators to grow rail patronage and revenue.
Andrew Jones
My hon. Friend knows my enthusiasm for open access services and the way they bring competition and innovation. That benefits customers by raising standards and therefore encourages more people to use our railways. Does he share my enthusiasm? If so, how will he be promoting open access services? May I gently remind him that I have written to him on this subject with some ideas to promote this way of driving more usage of our rail system?
Huw Merriman
I thank my hon. Friend for his letter, for the number of times we have met to discuss this issue and for his enthusiasm, which is shared not only by me, but by the Secretary of State. We saw the authorisation at the end of last year of Grand Union Trains to run services between London and Carmarthen, and we are committed to getting more open access operators, in order to encourage more operators to come to the market. My hon. Friend will know that during the recent rail strikes, open access operators such as Lumo were able to continue to operate. I am meeting the Office of Rail and Road, which is ultimately responsible for the rules in this area, to encourage it to grow open access.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for his response. Encouraging more people to use rail services is about accessibility, the availability of trains, and park and ride schemes, so that people can park their cars and use the trains. Like him, I am a great believer in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and we should always share our thoughts, discussions and ideas. Has he had any opportunity to share how he can do those things here in the UK with Translink and the Northern Ireland Assembly back home?
Huw Merriman
I am conscious that these matters are devolved in Northern Ireland but, as I have said before to all Members of the House, I am keen to learn from best practice and to ensure that all parts of the UK can learn from each other. It would be ideal if I could meet the hon. Gentleman so we can discuss these things and I can get his ideas, and if I could come over to visit the operators in Northern Ireland that he references and join him in that endeavour.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
As the House will know, active travel is at the heart of the Government’s agenda and we are investing about £3 billion to support it—that is more than any previous Government. The Government report regularly to Parliament on progress towards meeting their active travel goals, and the next report will be published alongside the third statutory cycling and walking investment strategy in due course.
Selaine Saxby
I am delighted that active travel funding has reached North Devon and that part of the missing link of the Tarka trail will be completed. However, the time constraints on when the funding needs to be spent mean that Devon County Council is not yet able to complete the whole stretch. Will my right hon. Friend confirm when further funding rounds will be available to enable this much-needed and long overdue missing link to be completed?
Jesse Norman
I congratulate my hon. Friend, who is a fantastic campaigner for active travel. She rightly says that it is great that North Devon has been able to benefit, along with the rest of Devon, from £1.8 million through active travel fund 4. Active Travel England plans to run a further capital funding round later this year and will work with local authorities, including those in rural areas, to encourage bids for schemes that have high potential to increase walking, wheeling and cycling trips.
Wera Hobhouse
People walking, wheeling and cycling saved 2.5 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions and avoided more than 29,000 early deaths in 2021. However, only a fifth of total active travel spending comes from dedicated funding, with the rest coming from various funding pots that are not guaranteed. With such a low proportion of ringfenced funding, how can the Government guarantee that this money is really spent on active travel, which is good for our health, economy and environment?
Jesse Norman
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that active travel—cycling, walking and wheeling—is probably the single biggest health intervention a human being can make in their lives as a choice of habit. She is right to highlight the importance of supporting it, as the Government have—more so than any previous Government. There are a range of pots, including city region sustainable transport settlements, the road investment strategy 2 and levelling-up fund moneys, into which authorities can bid. Many have done so and will continue to do so highly successfully. That provides a continuing opportunity for them to benefit from these levels of increased funding.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
May I associate myself with the condolences that have been sent to those in India?
In 2021, Ministers set themselves four targets to measure progress in active travel uptake. Three years on, how many of these targets are they confident of meeting? I can tell Members that it is not a single one, according to the Government’s own assessment revealed by the National Audit Office yesterday. The NAO report also uncovered a staggering cut to active travel funding of £166 million, which, by the Government’s own workings, would cost the taxpayer more than £700 million in the long run. Will the Minister finally come clean and confirm whether he will be slashing this vital funding by 60% next year, too—yes or no?
Jesse Norman
The hon. Lady will be aware that the Government have had to make efficiency savings across the board as a result of the illegal war being waged by Putin in Ukraine. The report she mentions reflects the fact that the Government set highly ambitious targets, which have always been known and understood to be testing. One great advantage of the installation of Active Travel England—a sensational organisation—is precisely that we can drive better value for money as well as better quality of schemes across the whole of our infra- structure.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Huw Merriman)
Comprehensive monitoring arrangements are in place for HS2, which all provide an up-to-date view of the status, challenges and opportunities facing the programme. We produce a range of public-facing updates, including the six-monthly update report to Parliament, the next iteration of which is due for publication shortly.
Sarah Green
A few weeks ago, my constituents woke to find a large sinkhole in a field directly above where the HS2 tunnel boring machines had been. This was predicted years ago by my constituents in evidence to this House. The Environment Agency’s response to the sinkhole appears to be little more than allowing HS2 contractors to mark their own homework, and it is the latest example of the Environment Agency’s inadequate response to questions that have been raised about HS2. It is vital that we can have faith in the organisation to undertake its statutory responsibilities. Will the Minister meet me and my constituents to hear directly about their concerns about the oversight of HS2?
Huw Merriman
It is certainly the case that the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Act 2017 and the High Speed Rail (West Midlands – Crewe) Act 2021 specify the circumstances in which HS2 must seek the consent of the Environment Agency for construction. I know that, on this particular matter, the Environment Agency has been working with HS2 Ltd since that ground movement was discovered. I have also asked for it to be looked into. I will ensure that I get a separate report from the Environment Agency so that we have that independence, and when I have that, I will happily sit down with the hon. Lady and her constituents to take them through what has been found. She is absolutely right: we need to have independent scrutiny. I am absolutely fixed on that myself.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
Two weeks ago, my constituents, the Hodges of Elm Tree farm in Steeple Claydon, discovered by accident while walking their dogs that HS2 Ltd was about to chainsaw an area of woodland on the farm that it had not paid for. There was no consultation. HS2 fenced off land that it does not own and then there were suspicious works in the middle of the night. When will my hon. Friend clamp down on this appalling, bullying behaviour from HS2 Ltd and its contractors?
Huw Merriman
I was very pleased to sit down very recently with my hon. Friend, people from HS2 Ltd and Buckinghamshire Council to go through some of the matters that were on his agenda. I know that this is the latest case that he has written to me about. I will look into the detail to ensure that we both have the correct facts, and the next time I am up near Steeple Claydon, which, as he knows, happens on a regular basis, we can perhaps take a look ourselves.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I, too, convey my condolences to the families of the victims of the harrowing rail disaster in India.
The Government’s management of HS2 could hardly be worse: the budget has ballooned out of all proportion; we are already years behind on the launch of services; the merry-go-round of Ministers has created chaos; and the project at Euston station may never see the light of day. The six-monthly update to Parliament is already months late. We are none the wiser about the promised excellent alternative to the cancelled Golborne link, and we have been waiting years for the review into the best way to run HS2 to Leeds after this Government betrayed the north by scrapping the eastern leg. It appears that trickle-down economics has been replaced by trickle-down incompetence. Rather than the usual woolly ministerial responses of “coming soon to a station near you” and rather than responding to all of these failures, can the Minister answer just one simple question: when will the Leeds area study finally be published?
Huw Merriman
The ministerial merry-go-round goes round to a Merriman to listen to yet another long-winded effort from the hon. Gentleman, which eventually turns into a question. The reality is that we remain committed to HS2 and to line of route from London all the way up to Manchester. He talks about ballooning costs, but we have tried to look at the cost estimate and rephase HS2 as a result. He cannot have it both ways. I am committed to ensuring that the study comes out very soon; I met with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to work on the matter and we work closely together. Our aim is to ensure that when that study comes out, it has the imagination in it to deliver properly all the ideas that we had always intended, and we will do so. We are committed to HS2 and to the investment and decarbonisation it will bring. I am sorry there has been a change of Ministers, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there will not be any changes any time soon.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Mark Harper)
The Government have invested more than £3.5 billion in buses since March 2020, including our recently announced package of up to £300 million to protect and improve services long term, and up to £200 million to continue capping bus fares on thousands of routes in England outside London until November next year. That funding is helping to ensure that those who use the bus every day to live, work and travel can continue to do so for less.
Matt Vickers
The Government recently announced huge investment to improve and protect bus services, but in my part of the world Arriva has chosen to cherry-pick the most profitable routes, ditching others such as the 17 and leaving youngsters unable to get to school, adults unable get to work and pensioners cut off from health services. Will my right hon. Friend work with me to prevent bus operators from putting profit before people and to see what can be done to protect services in Stockton South?
Mr Harper
I am confident that my hon. Friend will campaign in his area to protect those bus services. The additional £300 million includes £1.5 million for the Tees Valley, which will help local transport authorities and bus operators to protect and improve their services. We expect them to work together to deliver sustainable networks. I know he will campaign strongly to ensure that a share of that extra money from Government goes to protect services to his constituents.
Liz Twist
In January, I was glad to hear that Transport North East’s decarbonisation bid for our bus services had been successful. I now understand that subsidy control procedures mean that none of the electric buses have yet been ordered, let alone delivered, and I fear we may run out of time under the terms of the grant or get fewer buses for our money because of inflation. We need those electric buses in the north-east, so will the Secretary of State meet me to ensure we get them on the road as soon as possible?
Mr Harper
I am glad that the hon. Lady gives me an opportunity to remind the House that Transport North East has been awarded £19.5 million as part of round 2 of the levelling up fund, which delivers those buses. There are some appropriate checks that must take place, and I hope she will also welcome the fact that the North East and North of Tyne Combined Authorities got £117.8 million for their bus service improvement plans to deliver better bus services for her constituents.
Luke Hall
Rural bus services such as the 84, 85 and 622 services in south Gloucestershire are vital for residents to commute to work, get to school and attend health appointments, but they are under real pressure. South Gloucestershire Council has stepped in to provide a temporary fix for the 84 and 85 services, but will the Secretary of State urge the council and the West of England Mayor to work together to find a permanent solution for those services, using the improvement plan subsidies provided to them, so that residents in villages such as Charfield, Wickwar, Hawkesbury Upton, Rangeworthy and Tytherington are not cut off from having any bus services at all?
Mr Harper
As the Environment Secretary set out earlier this week, the Government are committed to unlocking opportunities in rural areas in particular, and local transport connectivity is crucial to that. The extra money we set out will help to protect services, and I can confirm that I would expect local councils and the West of England Mayor to work together to deliver those. I forgot to say in my previous answer to the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) that I will of course make sure that the roads Minister meets her to talk about her specific question about her buses.
Mary Kelly Foy
Recently, Arriva gave up its subsidised 57A route, which goes through my constituency. The council has struggled to find an alternative operator because the Government have banned it from creating its own bus company—one that could serve the local community, which is left struggling to access key local services and even to get to work. Does the Minister agree that it is long overdue and common sense to end the ideological ban on municipal bus companies?
Mr Harper
The hon. Lady should recognise that, as I said in answer to the previous question, the North East Combined Authority and the North of Tyne Combined Authority were awarded £117.8 million to deliver their ambitious bus service improvement plan. That is the mechanism that we have set up for local authorities to have ambitious plans to work with bus operators to deliver better services for constituents, properly funded from central Government. I hope that they use that revenue and those powers to deliver the improved bus services that she wants.
Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)
I am pleased that the Government’s latest bus deal lasts longer than the usual three months, but as ever, there are winners and losers. Last year, both Southampton and Swindon applied for zero-emission bus funding. They got nothing. They applied for BSIP funding, and how much did they get, Secretary of State? Nothing. Last month, every council finally received something, but Southampton and Swindon got barely £1 million between them, amounting to a pathetic £2 per person. Can he explain why areas such as Southampton and Swindon have got so little to fix their broken bus systems?
Mr Harper
I am pleased that, in his question, the hon. Gentleman sort of welcomed the £500 million that we made available for buses in our announcement last month, which was welcome and provides money to every local authority and to bus companies. There is a formula by which that money is awarded—it is not awarded on a whim; it is based on mileage and usage, and is done in a sensible way—and the money was awarded fairly under that process. As I said in answer to the previous question, it is all very well criticising us, but we set out clear plans to support bus services in our announcement last month. Labour Members have made no pledges on buses; it is all on rail. Is that because ASLEF pays their wages and they are not interested in buses, which twice as many people use compared with rail services?
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
The Government are committed to accelerating the transition to zero-emission vehicles. To support this transition, we will introduce a world-leading zero-emission vehicle mandate. That will support the future supply of zero emission vehicles by setting a minimum percentage of manufacturers’ new car and van sales to be zero emission each year from 2024.
Nicola Richards
It is great news that Jaguar Land Rover will manufacture its first UK-made electric car in the west midlands, continuing our long history of attracting manufacturing investment from across the world. Will the Minister join me in welcoming JLR’s £15 billion investment, and does he agree that it shows that we are emerging, thanks to this Government, as a world leader in clean technology, which is good for jobs, good for the economy and good for the environment?
Jesse Norman
Of course, I was delighted to see JLR’s commitment to investing in UK manufacturing and confirming its plans to bring electric vehicle production to the west midlands. Through our policies and investments, the Government are accelerating electrification and unlocking industry investment to meet our net zero ambitions. The automotive industry is a vital part of that process. This is a vote of confidence from the UK’s largest carmaker.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
May I say how pleased I am that, thanks to the wonderful people at Guy’s and St Thomas’s, I am back in operation?
May I ask the Minister not to get totally fixated on electric vehicles? There are a few companies establishing hydrogen-powered service stations for trucks up and down the country. With less impact on the environment, hydrogen has real possibility in this country.
Jesse Norman
I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to his seat. He will be aware that the Government are very interested in the potential of hydrogen, not just in heavier vehicles but also in maritime and, through hydrogen fuel cells, in aerospace. We take a technology-neutral approach, so I have been looking at all those things. I had the great pleasure of visiting JCB, which has pioneered a hydrogen-based off-road digger, and what a splendid machine that is.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
Although electric cars are important, the EU, under pressure from the German car industry, has put back the date when petrol combustion engines will be banned. What discussions have we had with our industry about whether it might be appropriate to do that here, given that that may give some of our industry difficulty in continuing to manufacture in the future?
Jesse Norman
The third round of consultations on the zero-emission vehicle mandate has just closed. We work closely with all the relevant parties, in particular the car manufacturers. My hon. Friend should be aware that not deflecting from our path, as has been done elsewhere, will not just put the UK further ahead in this area but will trigger a substantial amount of private sector investment in charging infrastructure. ChargeUK has announced that some £6 billion will be invested by private means in the charging network over the next few years, which is to be welcomed.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
The different application of VAT between domestic and public charging points is clearly a disincentive to those who are considering adopting electric vehicles. Some 38% of households do not have access to private parking and would rely on public charge points. Will the Minister speak to his colleagues in the Treasury to ensure that the Chancellor takes account of that in the next Budget and ensures that this unfair VAT charge is scrapped?
Jesse Norman
It is worth saying that the tax system does support the take-up of electric vehicles already. As a former Financial Secretary, I can tell the hon. Lady that I would be skinned if I made Treasury policy from the Dispatch Box. I am not going to do that, but I have no doubt that my colleagues in the Treasury will have noted her concern.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Huw Merriman)
The Secretary of State and the Chancellor regularly meet to discuss rail services, and between them they are delivering unprecedented investment in rail infrastructure and reform of the industry. That includes delivering High Speed 2, core Northern Powerhouse Rail and East West Rail, as confirmed by the Chancellor at the autumn statement, while investing in the existing network across the country.
Chris Stephens
According to reports, Great British Railways is dead in the water thanks to a Treasury that knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing. We have seen the Yorkshire leg of HS2 dumped, Northern Powerhouse Rail stripped to the bone and HS2 terminating at Old Oak Common. Does the Minister agree that his colleagues in the Treasury are the biggest threat to the rail network and public transport across these islands?
Huw Merriman
I do not agree at all. The Secretary of State was quite clear in his Bradshaw talk that Great British Railways would be put forward. It is being put forward, and that Bradshaw address was endorsed by the Treasury and all parts of Government. We are absolutely committed. Later today I will have a discussion with all the team involved in rail reform, as I do on a weekly basis, as we look to transition this project from the Department to Great British Railways. Legislation delivers certain parts of it, but it does not deliver the project. We are delivering the project, and we will look to deliver the legislation when time allows it.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be delighted if rail companies, some of which take a rather lax approach to ticket inspection, ensured that passengers had a valid ticket. I can give an example. I, along with seven other members of the High Speed Rail (Crewe – Manchester) Bill Select Committee, went to Manchester on Tuesday. We paid an extortionate amount for our tickets. On the outward journey, no one inspected the tickets, nor did we pass through any barriers. If the Chancellor had more money, he could use it to improve rail services.
Huw Merriman
I thought my hon. Friend was about to tell us about an even more unfortunate incident, but I am glad that did not occur. We have increased the fine for those who are not using valid tickets to £100, which is reduced to £50 if it is paid on time. That increase demonstrates that we take this matter very seriously. Like him, I find it frustrating when I encounter journeys where the ticket is not checked either on the train or at barriers. I am determined to do more on that front; he is aware of that, and I encourage him to work with me as we do that.
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
As I am sure the House will widely agree, speeding is a very serious road safety issue that has a direct link with the risk of collisions, serious injury and fatality. Traffic law enforcement is an operational matter for the police, and operational decisions are for police and crime commissioners and chief constables. That includes policy and procedures for using police powers and resources.
Mark Eastwood
Speeding continues to be one of the biggest issues in Dewsbury, Mirfield, Kirkburton and Denby Dale. Will the Minister agree to visit my constituency to meet with community groups and road safety campaigners and discuss how best we can tackle this problem?
Jesse Norman
The Government are committed to ensuring that roads are safe for drivers. I have no doubt that the roads Minister would be absolutely delighted to visit my hon. Friend in his constituency, and to talk to those community groups and other interested parties about this important issue.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Since 2010, the rate of road deaths has plateaued. Is the Minister proud of that record, and when will he finally publish the long-awaited road safety strategic framework?
Jesse Norman
As the hon. Lady knows, when I was roads Minister, we did a lot of work on safety reviews for walking and cycling. I do not think anyone who looks at the statistics, which of course are not controlled by Government or any single force, will be proud of where they are. One reason why I am excited about the potential for new automated, driver-assistive and other technologies is that in principle, they have the capacity to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries very significantly. That is something we should all welcome.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
There are currently over 42,000 public electric vehicle charge points in the UK, alongside hundreds of thousands more in homes and workplaces. The Government have allocated a share of £381 million to every local area in England under the local EV infrastructure fund, and are also supporting rapid chargers along the strategic road network. The Government also provide grants to support the provision of charge points in flats, rental properties, residential car parks and workplaces.
Matt Western
According to The Times, the gulf between the number of electric vehicles on our roads and the number of public charge points has doubled in the past year. Logistics UK reports that many of its operators with commercial vehicles cannot access those points, so it seems that the Government need to do more on planning and encouraging investment. Could the Minister update us?
Jesse Norman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question—I thought he was going to mention the £3.29 million of capital funding that Warwickshire County Council has received in this area, but I take the general point he raises. When EV purchases are growing rapidly, as they are in this country, there will be moments of disconnect between the amount of infrastructure and the number of vehicles. We have certainly seen a bit of that recently, and we will perhaps continue to see it for a number of months or more, but what is interesting is that the new zero-emission vehicle mandate allows us to trigger billions of pounds of potential private investment, as I have mentioned. That is a world-leading intervention by Government, and I think it will pay long-term dividends in supporting the expansion of the electric car fleet.
Mary Glindon
EV charging in the north-east is falling behind the rest of the country. Most of the stock are older, much slower charging points that often do not work, and the ones that do are often at capacity. Will the Minister commit to working with Transport North East and our councils to ensure that owning and charging an electric vehicle continues to be a possibility in our region?
Jesse Norman
The point of the LEVI fund is precisely to create an equitable spread of public charge points around the country. The north-east is not badly served in the overall numbers per head of population, but we can always do better. I would be happy to meet any local organisations that are committed to that agenda, as the hon. Lady has suggested. She will know—if she has not done so, she can check in the transparency records—that we have been very active in dealing with local authorities, motorway service operators, charge point operators and others with an interest in this area.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that if local authorities were to look at their byelaws, that would enable EV charging gullies to be facilitated for those who do not have off- street parking? That would have a huge impact on the roll-out of EV charging infrastructure.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I associate those on the SNP Benches with the Secretary of State’s comments on the horrendous rail incident in India.
Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) and I visited the Cromarty Firth, Aberdeen and Orkney to see the real progress in Scotland’s renewables and transport decarbonisation sectors, including the public charger roll-out, where Orkney has the highest number per capita in the UK—four times the English rate outside of London—and Scotland has twice as many rapid chargers per head. Surely that shows the fundamental role of Government in driving transport decarbonisation. The low numbers in England outside of London highlight the danger of leaving it to the market.
Jesse Norman
I do not accept the premise of that argument. We have discussed it in the Select Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) was right, because he highlighted the different technologies that can be used rapidly to extend charge points, including gullies and pop-up charge points. We are in the process of rapid expansion and change, and the House would expect that to continue. The amount of private sector investment that we have already triggered or will be triggering through the mandate once it is on the statute book will drive that process still faster.
Gavin Newlands
What the Minister says ignores the reality that the gap between Scotland and England on chargers is widening, rather than narrowing. What we have seen in Scotland is a party that believes in the power of Government to benefit transport. We have EV infrastructure outstripping England, a publicly owned rail service scrapping peak-time fares, many times more zero-emission buses ordered and on the road, and active travel spending increasing to more than £300 million while budgets here are butchered. Is it not time that the Government admitted that the Thatcherite deregulation model has failed completely and instead got to work helping the state to build a transport network fit for the 21st century?
Jesse Norman
I do not accept that at all. It is inevitable with a change of this magnitude that it will be essential for state interventions to trigger private investment. That will go in the first instance where it can trigger additional growth in the market. We use the LEVI fund and other mechanisms to ensure equity across the country.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Huw Merriman)
Avanti began operating in December 2019 and within 16 weeks had transitioned on to an emergency measures agreement due to the covid-19 pandemic. Since then, the service provision has adjusted to align with demand and to balance taxpayer and passenger needs. I welcome recent performance improvements, with Avanti-caused cancellations down from 13.2% in January 2023 to 1.4% for the month of April.
Michael Fabricant
I thank my hon. Friend for his answer —[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I was shouting to the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) not to come past the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) when he was in the middle of a question. Try again, Mr Fabricant.
Michael Fabricant
Take 2. Mr Speaker, you might disagree with the Minister’s answer and say that the reliability of Avanti is still not that good. Nevertheless, my question is about services from Lichfield Trent Valley station. I wonder when services can be restored whereby we have a decent service on Sundays, particularly early Sunday evenings, both down to Euston and to the north. That used to exist before covid, but those services are no longer on the timetable.
Huw Merriman
Normal service resumed after a passenger crossed the line of sight in front of my hon. Friend. Anything that deprives my hon. Friend, and indeed his constituents, of the ability to get down from Lichfield is something that I will have to look at and help. I am meeting the managing director of Avanti today, as it turns out. I will raise my hon. Friend’s point and happily write back to him and do my best.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
ScotRail, the Caledonian Sleeper, LNER and now TransPennine Express have all been nationalised. Increasingly, that is clearly the model that will deliver the reliable train services that customers need. What steps is the Minister taking to monitor the impact of nationalisation and whether it ought to be rolled out to the other franchises?
Huw Merriman
The steps I am taking on monitoring are looking at being able to put those operations back to the private sector. That is our preferred model. On TransPennine trains, I had a very good meeting with the interim chief executive, and I thank him for the work he is doing to stabilise. A plan is being looked at that will be delivered by next month, I believe. We currently have a situation where 50% of drivers are not trained up. What that tells us is that we need a lot more co-operation with the unions to get our drivers trained so that they can drive trains across all routes.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Mark Harper)
We know that buses are a social and economic lifeline for millions across the country. That is why we are keeping fares down and keeping vital bus routes open. We have extended our popular £2 bus fare cap until the end of October, followed by a £2.50 cap until November next year. On top of the £2 billion in support we have provided to the sector since the pandemic, we are investing £300 million to support essential services and routes for the next two years. This is giving the sector certainty, helping people with the cost of living and delivering against our priority to halve inflation, as well as protecting the vital role that buses play in growing our economy.
Greg Smith
Overcrowding on Chiltern services from stations such as Haddenham and Thame Parkway and Princes Risborough has become beyond unacceptable. That will only get worse if Chiltern is forced to discontinue the Class 68 loco-hauled trains, as expected. Will my right hon. Friend agree to enable the continued use of these trains until Chiltern can complete its full planned fleet renewal?
Mr Harper
I am able to tell my hon. Friend that officials in the Department are already working with Chiltern on looking at how we deal with those issues. I know that the rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), will be delighted to meet him to give him more detail of the work already under way so that we can deliver a better service for his constituents.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Due to the UK’s out-of-date and inefficient airspace, designed in the 1960s, the average flight from Luton to Jersey emits 24% more carbon than necessary. Modernising UK airspace is the quickest and most effective way to save carbon in the UK aviation sector. The process is so slow and bureaucratic that it is going to be the 2060s before this is sorted. Is it not time the Secretary of State stepped up to the plate?
Mr Harper
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of airspace modernisation, which is exactly why we are getting on with it. I have had recent discussions with National Air Traffic Services on the work it is doing and discussions with the Civil Aviation Authority. That work is under way, and we are looking at it in the UK, but also working with our international partners to make sure this plays a part in decarbonisation. It was something I discussed in the US when I co-chaired a summit with the US Transportation Secretary, and we talked about these issues with important players in the aviation sector globally.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Huw Merriman)
My hon. Friend is right to point out that we currently view costs as sitting with the DFT and revenue as sitting with the Treasury. This can make it harder to increase services, even when extra revenue can be assured, because costs at the DFT cannot increase. He can be assured that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and I spoke yesterday about how we can grow services and revenues with one profit and loss statement. I am also working with the train operators to amend their contracts, so they can be the parties that take the risk and get a greater share of the reward.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
As the hon. Lady will know, I have already outlined the support that we have been giving and the warm interest we take in hydrogen, so I am very interested to hear what she says. If she could bear to send me the details, I will make sure that I or the relevant Minister responds to her.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Ind)
Jesse Norman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We had a Westminster Hall debate on this a few months ago. As he will know, the UK policy on public service obligations is to protect existing routes in danger of being lost, and the DFT jointly funds routes into London from Newquay, Dundee and Derry/Londonderry. Lord Hendy’s independent Union connectivity review has now been lodged. We have welcomed it, and we will continue to consider the ways in which PSOs can help the Government to achieve regional connectivity needs.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
British Transport Police highlighted that instances of sexual harassment and sexual offences on public transport have soared by a shocking 175% between 2019 and 2020. We need our women and girls to feel safe to use public transport, and to use it so that we can tackle the climate emergency. Labour is committed to halving violence against women and girls. When will the Government match that commitment and make sure that our women and girls feel safe to use public transport?
Mr Harper
The hon. Lady is right to focus on this. That is why the Government published our cross-Government “Tackling violence against women and girls strategy”, which the Department for Transport is fundamentally involved with. Since 2019 the BTP, which the hon. Lady mentioned specifically, has enhanced its approach to combating violence against women and girls, complemented by the BTP chief constable’s personal commitment and drive on this subject.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Jesse Norman
My hon. Friend might know that I visited Devon in a previous incarnation as roads Minister precisely to look at its innovative work on potholes. She will also be aware that the Government are investing £5 billion in local highways maintenance outside London, with the mayoral combined authorities already receiving CRSTS—city regional sustainable transport settlement—money. It is up to each local highway authority to decide how best to spend that money, but of course we do expect them to be able to account locally and we also think about how roads are surveyed and assessed and how well they are being treated as assets by those authorities.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
With Luton Town being promoted to the premier league last week, many fans will be travelling by train, including from London clubs such as Arsenal. However, as the Minister knows, Luton station is sadly not accessible for many people with mobility issues, and while he has confirmed Access for All money is forthcoming to put lifts in the station by next year, what recent conversations has he had with the Sport Minister, the right hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), regarding accessibility of the rail network for travelling sports fans?
Huw Merriman
I congratulate Luton Town. As the hon. Lady knows, my family are big supporters; they have been there through the bad times and they will be there in the good ones as well. I also thank her for showing me around Luton station. I am committed to ensuring that Access for All is delivered at that station on time; any attempts to push back will not get signed off by me. On her campaign on the leaky roof on platforms 1 and 2, which she showed me, the work will start in August and complete in early 2024—I thank her for that.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Mr Harper
Recognising Heathrow’s significant market power, it is economically regulated by the Civil Aviation Authority, including capping Heathrow’s charges. The CAA published its 2022 to 2026 settlement decision in March. The Competition and Markets Authority is considering appeals against that decision and I hope my hon. Friend will recognise that I cannot comment on that ongoing process. Separately, the Department aims to publish the independent review of the CAA by the summer and will consider any economic regulation-related recommendations at that time.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
My constituent Vance applied for a medical driving licence in April 2022; 14 months later, after delays, he has been told he needs to reapply. This is having a direct impact on his job. Why is any constituent experiencing such delays, and can the Minister explain what is being done to address them?
Mr Harper
Obviously that specific case should not have happened. If the hon. Lady sends through the details, I will make sure that the roads Minister looks at it in detail. Generally, medical cases are taking longer to get sorted out than general cases following both the pandemic and industrial action, but we are well on our way to getting that on track. I will, however, make sure the roads Minister looks at that specific case.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
Jesse Norman
In 2021, we asked National Highways to undertake a study looking at possible interventions on or around the M65 at Colne. That study focused on localised congestion pinch points on that road, which is owned and managed by Lancashire County Council. It concluded in 2022, and the findings were handed over to the council and Transport for the North. It is for them to decide what further action they may wish to take as a result, but I know they will, and they certainly should, attend closely to what my hon. Friend said.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. There is real frustration because the Secretary of State and the rail Minister will not talk and settle the dispute between the trade unions and the operators. No talks have been held since the beginning of the year. When I speak to the rail companies, they say they want to do a deal and they believe that there is a pathway to end the dispute. When I speak to the trade unions—ASLEF and RMT—they say the same. So why will he not get round the table and end the dispute?
Mr Harper
As I said, the table, which the hon. Lady refers to, has an offer on it. All it requires is for the RMT—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) on the Front Bench says that they have not accepted it. The members of those unions—the members—have not been given the opportunity to vote on it. The deal is on the table. The union leaders should put it to their members and ask them what they think.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
Mr Harper
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. I am sure that the roads Minister will be happy to meet him to discuss that further. I understand that Norfolk County Council has completed the feasibility study into the improvements at that junction and has committed funds to continue the development of the scheme. That puts Norfolk in a strong position to submit a bid, should funding opportunities arise. I know that he will press that case strongly.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
A simple question for the Transport Secretary: are the Government committed to building a third runway at Heathrow—yes or no?
Mr Harper
As the hon. Lady knows, the decision about whether to build a third runway is one for Heathrow. The funding has to come from Heathrow. She knows that if, at some point in the future, it wants to proceed with that, a significant process has to get under way. She would not expect me to express an opinion on it because there is obviously a clear judicial process to follow, but it is up to Heathrow to make the first move and we wait with interest to see whether it does so.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Jesse Norman
I thank my hon. Friend very much for her question. She knows, and I have already said, how important the safety of all road users is to the Government. This part of the A38 has a high collision rate and we want to address that with local authorities. A package of safety measures between Carkeel and Trerulefoot was announced as a pipeline scheme in the second road investment strategy for delivery in the future RIS. National Highways consulted on proposed safety improvements and continues to develop its plans in the light of feedback received. We will encourage it to accelerate that work.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Secretary of State aware of the anecdotally large number of learner drivers who deliver pizzas and that sort of stuff? They have learner plates. They have had no training. Is he worried? We have all heard anecdotally that there are lots of casualties and deaths. Has he any hard facts on that?
Mr Harper
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue and it is very good to see him back in his place. It is difficult to make policy based on anecdote. If he has specific examples and evidence, I would be delighted if he wrote to me or the roads Minister, and we will of course look into the serious matters he raises in the House.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
Roadworks that continually reappear on the same stretch of road at multiple locations are a major cause of congestion across the towns and villages in Erewash, particularly in Long Eaton and Sawley. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking, in conjunction with colleagues in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, to ensure that utility companies better co-ordinate their work schedules to minimise disruption to road users?
Jesse Norman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that that can be a complete pest. Over the last few years, the Government have taken some action to address that. Utility companies have a right of access to highways to install and repair apparatus, and we rely on them to do so in many ways. The Government introduced a number of initiatives, including the development of Street Manager and regulatory changes, which are all designed to improve the efficiency of how such works are carried out and co-ordinated.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Malawi, I often hear from stakeholders, both business and civil society, about their frustration over the lack of direct flights between the UK and Malawi. I appreciate that that is largely a commercial decision for operators, but what role can the Department for Transport play in bringing together interested parties to discuss what options might be available?
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman put his finger on it: it is largely a commercial decision. If regulatory issues or other issues are preventing that from happening, I would be delighted to look into those. If he raises them on behalf of the APPG, I would be delighted to hear from him, but those are largely commercial decisions for airlines and airports to take.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that road congestion is bad for the economy, bad for the environment and bad for the mental health of motorists? To that extent, why are the Government pursuing policies that are making road congestion worse rather than better?
Jesse Norman
There are a range of independent estimates of the impact of road congestion financially. They range between hundreds of millions of pounds and billions of pounds; my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government are not taking any action to increase congestion. Many schemes, for example active travel schemes, which are regarded by some—by some—as schemes that increase congestion, actually reduce it. He will notice, however, that some schemes put in place under the emergency active travel fund two or three years ago during the pandemic have been revised. I think local authorities are coming to realise that those were somewhat inexpeditiously put in place and we hope they will continue to do so.
Business of the House
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
To ask the Leader of the House if she will give us the forthcoming business.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
The business for the week commencing 12 June will include:
Monday 12 June—Consideration of Lords message to the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, followed by a debate on a motion to approve the draft Public Order Act 1986 (Serious Disruption to the Life of the Community) Regulations 2023, followed by a general debate on the risk-based exclusion of Members of Parliament.
Tuesday 13 June—Remaining stages of the Procurement Bill [Lords].
Wednesday 14 June—Opposition day (10th allocated day, second part). Debate in the name of the Scottish National party, subject to be announced, followed by a general debate on defence policy. Hon. Members have been asking for a debate in Government time on both Ukraine and NATO. Both issues will be in scope of this debate.
Thursday 15 June—General debate on Pride Month, followed by a general debate on Government policies on migration. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 16 June—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 19 June includes:
Monday 19 June—Remaining stages of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business.
It was incredibly frustrating to see this worn-out Tory Government shut up shop and clear out of here before 2 o’clock on Tuesday. The House has regularly risen early for months because of thin Government business, at least down this end—in the other place, they seem to be clogged up. How are Tory Ministers spending their time? Clearly not delivering in their Departments. Are they racing home to watch daytime TV instead? Has the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) been watching too much “Escape to the Country”? I hear he is planning a chicken run to a rural so-called “safe” seat in Oxfordshire. Does the Leader of the House fancy her chances against the “Eggheads”? Perhaps she can try to raise some money to cover the extortionate cost to the taxpayer of the former Prime Minister’s legal fees.
The Government ought to be using the precious time they have in this House to pass laws that will make people’s lives better. They have the power, but why are they not using it? Have they just given up? Why did the Leader of the House not use Tuesday to bring forward the much-needed transport or schools Bills? Everyone in this House knows the damage that 13 years of Tory Government have done to our transport and education systems. Will they not at least try to fix them?
The Government could have also brought forward their long-promised Mental Health Bill. The Committee that studied a draft version published its final report way back in January—six months ago—and there is still no sign of a Bill. Has the Health Secretary even read that report? Do Ministers support calls for stronger measures, or not? Will the Health Secretary come to this House and answer MPs’ questions, or not? People are worried sick about the state that this Government have left mental health services in. Could the Leader of the House tell us whether she will announce a Mental Health Bill in this Session, or will the Tories really leave vulnerable people waiting even longer to receive the care they so desperately need?
Every week, it is left to Labour to bring forward a plan. This week, we called for the Government to introduce Labour’s plan to recruit thousands of mental health staff, to provide access to specialist mental health support in every school and to establish open access mental health hubs for children and young people, paid for by closing tax loopholes. What do Government Members have against any of that? Where is their plan? They had one, and they scrapped it.
As well as failing to bring froward new laws to help people with mental health problems, Ministers are failing to put into practice laws already passed. Let us take Seni’s law, set out in a private Member’s Bill by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) five years ago and passed unanimously. It is intended to monitor the disproportionate use of force and to tackle dangerous restraint in mental health settings, but the Government still do not seem to have made it a reality on the ground.
The Government have promised progress for years. Why are they still failing to protect mentally ill people properly? Could the Leader of the House please tell us when she will announce that they will? Could she help the shadow mental health Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan), to get answers to questions she has put to Ministers about meetings that they have had with mental health trusts where there are reported abuse scandals? She has asked six times. I know the right hon. Lady takes the issue of answers very seriously, but Ministers have failed to give my hon. Friend a decent answer, so could she ask her Health colleagues to respond with an answer that those people who have suffered terrible abuse deserve?
The Government have scrapped their 10-year mental health plan and have talked about a Mental Health Bill that it is nowhere to be seen. Meanwhile, waiting lists soar and people’s lives are damaged. Ministerial incompetence on mental health is a symbol of their approach in every Department and on every policy. We have a Prime Minister so out of touch, out of ideas and out of steam that he cannot even fill up a parliamentary day, breaking promises and letting people down. Meanwhile, Labour will work flat out on our plan to improve mental health care and to make the lives of people everywhere better.
Penny Mordaunt
First, on behalf of the House, I congratulate West Ham on their tremendous triumph yesterday. It is great to see so many happy fans.
The hon. Lady focused some of her remarks on mental health. She knows that this Government have vastly improved and raised the profile and status of mental health, and are delivering an extra £2.3 billion to the annual mental health budget. The Mental Health Bill is not nowhere to been seen; it has had scrutiny in the Joint Committee and that has just completed. She knows that I will announce business in the usual way, but the very serious issues that she raises about the treatment of particular people in inappropriate care settings will be addressed by some of the provisions in the Bill and I hope to update the House about that in the coming weeks.
I take issue with the hon. Lady’s assertion that in every Department we are not using our time well and we are not delivering for the public. On legislation, this week we passed the British Nationality (Regularisation of Past Practice) Bill, and next week we will be debating the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill and the Procurement Bill. We have introduced 40 Bills so far, including legislation to tackle illegal migration. We should all thank their cocoa-fuelled lordships for sitting very late last night to get that Bill to make progress.
Outside this Chamber, we are delivering and using our time well. On our mission to stop the boats, we have discovered this week that crossings are down by 20%, some 33,000 crossings have been prevented and Albanian small boat arrivals are down by 90%. We are a whole year ahead of meeting our manifesto commitment to recruit 26,000 more primary care staff, delivering on two of the priorities of the Prime Minister and the people. The hon. Lady mentions education. Statistics out today show that nearly 48,000 full-time equivalent teachers joined English schools in the academic year 2022-23, meaning there are 2,800 more teachers in class- rooms now than last year.
Labour Members are billing their party as some kind of dynamo, standing up for hard-working families, but they have consistently demonstrated their lack of support for hard-working families—not so much up the workers, as stuff the workers. There has been no condemnation of hard-left unions co-ordinating strikes that are bringing misery to millions of British citizens, and no condemnation of the extreme protest tactics of Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil, who get in the way of hard-working people trying to get to work, collecting their kids from school or getting their loved ones to hospital. Labour Members have consistently voted to weaken the Public Order Act 2023 and voted against protecting the public. While we have been strengthening police powers to lock people up, Labour has been promoting the merits of people locking-on. Labour has always got in the way of people going about their business, and it has turned the nanny state into an art form.
Today, where Labour is in power, it is getting in the way again. In Wales, rather than helping people to get a GP appointment, the Labour Government are trying to stop people from buying a meal deal. In London, the Labour Mayor is frustrating businesses and hiking household taxes through the ill-thought out, unravelling ultra-low emission zone scheme. Labour is an obstacle and a blocker—a load of old bollards.
If Members of the shadow Cabinet really want to disprove that and, as the hon. Lady suggests, show they are on the side of hard-grafting people and their families, they should do three things: they should stand up and condemn the process of Just Stop Oil, hand back all Labour’s associated donations, and make their 34th policy U-turn of the year by reversing Labour’s illogical stance on North sea oil and gas that is a barrier to our national security, growth and investment, increasing household incomes and our ability to cut emissions. As I say Mr Speaker, a load of old bollards.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
Is the Leader of the House aware that there are more than 16,500 new cases of skin cancer in the UK every year, largely because of unprotected exposure to the sun? Is she further aware that high-factor sun creams are subject to value added tax at the point of sale? Can we have a Government review, followed by a statement, into the desirability of exempting high-protection sun creams from VAT to encourage greater use?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that very good suggestion. One of the advantages of being outside the EU is that we now have complete control of our fiscal policy, and this is a great example of what we could do. I shall certainly ensure that the Secretary of State for Health and the Chancellor have heard his suggestion today, and I encourage him to raise it at the next health questions, which is on 11 July.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
It was announced in the Scottish Parliament yesterday that Scotland’s deposit return scheme has had to be delayed until October 2025. That is the latest estimate of how long it will take England to finally catch up with the devolved Governments and introduce its own scheme. Some would call this dithering and delaying, and I know that that is what a great many environmental organisations think.
Keep Britain Tidy estimates that every day of delay leaves an extra 140,000 cans and bottles littering Scotland. This delay, forced on Scotland by the UK Government’s refusal to grant an exemption under the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, means that tens of millions of those items will be littering Scotland’s lands and seas for many months to come. After several years of discussion with Scottish businesses and, indeed, nearly two years of discussion with the UK Government and officials under the common framework set-up, and with no justification offered for the refusal to agree to the exemption, the Secretary of State for Scotland swooped in at the last minute, like some sort of toff Tarzan, to squash the scheme—many examples of which can be seen across the world—and demanded that glass be removed from it, thus forcing Scotland to wait for England’s scheme to become operational. Given that no regulations outlining how England’s scheme will work have yet been laid, the estimated delivery date of 1 October 2025 in England looks optimistic, to put it kindly.
Once upon a time, we supposedly had the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world. Now we are not permitted to run a packaging recycling scheme. Will the Leader of the House perhaps permit a debate on devolution and its future, given that her Government apparently intend to continue to intervene and claw back to the centre powers that the people of Scotland wanted to be devolved to their Parliament? Can devolution now work only if the devolved and Westminster Governments are in complete agreement? Is that really what the people of Scotland voted for in 1997 in their devolution referendum? If the UK Government are prepared to intervene on a packaging recycling scheme, what confidence can we have that any of our Parliament’s policies will not be struck down in a similar way?
I have further questions. Why were so many MSPs and MPs in the right hon. Lady’s party enthusiastic about including glass in deposit return schemes previously —commitments to that were even included in the manifesto on which she stood—and what exactly has changed their minds? Acting on the advice of which bodies or individuals did the Secretary of State intervene, and with which environmental organisations did he discuss this before he intervened? Why has the inclusion of glass apparently been permitted for the scheme in Wales? I would be very grateful for some answers.
Penny Mordaunt
I shall be brief. The Secretary of State for Scotland is having these discussions with the Scottish Government first because he is standing up for the interests of Scottish business, which the SNP is not, and secondly because the scheme devised in Scotland will actually reduce recycling rates. As the hon. Lady will know, the delay in the scheme has been caused by the Scottish Government’s not engaging with the UK-wide scheme that would need to be devised because of the UK internal market. She need only go and listen to businesses in her constituency to understand their concerns about the Scottish scheme, and to hear their calls for compensation from the Scottish Government because this issue has been handled so poorly, and because of the investments they have had to make only to have the rug pulled from under their feet.
I also noted this week that the Auditor General for Scotland has revealed that the auditors are unable to account for billions of pounds’ worth of covid-19 business support grants that were handed to the Scottish Government, because of gaps in data. The SNP has made it impossible for the auditors to understand fully how £4.4 billion in grants and business reliefs were distributed between March 2020 and October 2021. I say thank heavens for the Secretary of State for Scotland, because he is standing up for the interests of the businesses and residents of Scotland.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
As this is Child Safety Week, will the Leader of the House join me in thanking the Child Accident Prevention Trust for its outstanding work to protect children, and, in particular, the support it has given the Harper-Lee Foundation, which campaigns for button battery safety, by raising awareness of the danger of swallowing button batteries? Will my right hon. Friend join me in encouraging the Government to bring forward the product safety review and the vital legislation that is necessary to ensure greater product safety for all button battery-powered products, and will she make parliamentary time available for a debate on issues of product safety in the context of risk to children?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for her work on this incredibly important issue, and also thank the family of her constituent who was sadly lost because of an accident with button batteries. She will know that the Minister for Enterprise, Markets and Small Business is chairing a cross-discipline working group to bring together all the players who can raise awareness of the risks. The Office for Product Safety and Standards commissioned a fast-track business standard for button batteries that was published in 2021, but there is more to be done, and I shall certainly ensure that the Minister has heard my hon. Friend’s remarks.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I am grateful, Mr Speaker. I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week and the Backbench business on 15 June. If the Committee is allocated the time, on 22 June we will have debates on the infected blood inquiry and on funding for the prevention of fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva, or FOP, which is a distressing ailment. On Thursday 29 June, if allocated the time, we will have debates on the UK fishing industry and on artificial intelligence.
The Backbench Business Committee understands that estimates debates are to take place in early July, and the deadline for submitting applications to the Committee will be Monday 19 June. Applications can be submitted online or on old-fashioned paper forms, and staff in the Table Office can provide advice. Applications for estimates debates can be submitted by individual Members, Select Committee Chairs or Select Committee members on topics relating to their Committee.
Through my work on the Education Committee, I have become aware that 92% of the 7,200 or so deaf children under the age of five are not gaining access to auditory verbal therapy, and that the UK has only 27 auditory verbal therapists. Can we have a statement about what the Government intend to do to recruit and train more auditory verbal therapists to rectify this injustice for our young deaf children?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful advert for the forthcoming business, which sounds very good indeed. I am sure many Members will be grateful for the chance to discuss the infected blood inquiry and progress against compensating all those affected and infected.
I will ensure that the Secretary of State for Education has heard his remarks about provision for deaf children. It is a subject close to my heart, and it is incredibly important that we provide opportunities for all sectors to ensure they have appropriately trained people in their workforce.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
On Tuesday, a Dunstable GP practice was telling me about patients who missed hospital appointments because their letters did not arrive, but that situation pales into insignificance compared with what is happening in Leighton Buzzard, where some constituents have not had post for six weeks. Despite the excellent efforts of the postmen and women, with whom I have been out on their delivery rounds, the management of Royal Mail in Leighton Buzzard is failing utterly. What can the Government do to ensure that my constituents have a decent hospital service, can get to their medical appointments on time, receive cheques through the post and get a proper postal service?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear about what has been happening in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I will ensure that both the relevant Ministers hear his worries about the poor service they are getting from Royal Mail. Given that situation, it is critical that healthcare is not relying on letters to notify people of appointments. There is of course the NHS app, which is good progress, but many people, particularly older people, will not have a smartphone, so picking up the good old-fashioned telephone is certainly an option they should consider. I shall make sure that both Ministers have heard his concerns.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Can we have a debate about legal aid for visa and asylum applications? I know that other hon. Members are finding it impossible for constituents to get a solicitor to assist them when they are entitled to that support. Perhaps Ministers could then explain how cutting off support and aid for people who need that advice reduces the backlog we are all struggling with, both in the Home Office and in our constituency offices.
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman raises a very sensible point, and I would be happy to make sure the Home Secretary has heard his remarks.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
May we have a full debate on the World Health Organisation? There are a number of issues about which many of us are concerned: the potential international treaty, the potential regulations and the discussion about international covid passports. The House ought to have an opportunity to express itself on some of these issues.
Penny Mordaunt
That is an excellent topic for debate. There are many aspects to this, and of course it plays into the Government’s programmes on patient records and other things. I will make sure the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has heard my hon. Friend’s suggestion, but he will know how to apply for a debate in the usual way—he has heard a fantastic advert from the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee—and I am sure such a debate would be well attended.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Government have excluded NHS contractors from the latest pay award given to NHS workers. NHS contractors in my Bath constituency will miss out on £2,000, on average. Can we have a statement from the relevant Minister on why healthcare contractors have been excluded from the pay uplift?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this important point. Given that the next Health and Social Care questions are not until 11 July, I will happily write to the Secretary of State on her behalf.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
New research shows that the UK’s birth rate is continuing to fall. At the same time, Fertility Network UK suggests that 3.5 million people are struggling with fertility, which is why I have launched my fertility workplace pledge to encourage employers to have a more progressive policy when it comes to fertility. Will my right hon. Friend consider giving Government time for a debate on fertility issues, particularly as we mark World Infertility Awareness Month this month?
Penny Mordaunt
Again, I thank my hon. Friend for the work she is doing for her constituents and, more widely, to raise awareness of this important matter. She makes an excellent suggestion for a debate. Of course, it is not just about healthcare; it is also about things like housing policy. One reason why people are delaying having children is because they are trying to get on the property ladder beforehand. I will make sure the relevant Minister has heard her remarks, and I congratulate her on the work she is doing.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Recent figures from the North East Child Poverty Commission show that, over the past nine years, more than 50,000 babies, children and young people have been pulled into poverty by successive Conservative Governments, yet the north-east has fantastic potential. We have great universities, fantastic start-ups, highly productive manufacturing and access to almost unlimited clean energy. Can we have a debate in Government time on an industrial strategy to realise the north-east’s economic potential, for the benefit of our young people and working families?
Penny Mordaunt
I will make sure the relevant Minister has heard the hon. Lady’s request. If she were to apply for a debate, I am sure it would be well attended. Indeed, I recently spoke from this Dispatch Box about the investment going into that part of the United Kingdom. She will know that we have the £94 billion cost of living package to alleviate the strains that households are under at the moment, but she will also know that, compared with 2010, we have 1 million fewer workless households, which is the best way to lift people out of poverty.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Tomorrow some of us will be celebrating the 40th anniversary of our first election to this place. Will my right hon. Friend give Government time for a debate on the comparison between the quality of public services in 1983 and the quality of public services today, and on the impact on those public services of the more than 20% increase in population since 1983?
Penny Mordaunt
I feel that those in the Press Gallery are now producing statistics for my hon. Friend’s 40 years —on the length of time he has spoken in private Members’ Bill debates and so forth. On behalf of us all, I say happy 40th anniversary to him for this week, as it is a tremendous landmark to have achieved. He makes an excellent suggestion for a debate. On the state of public services and their ability to cope with the population size, I can tell him that every time Labour has left office it has left the country in a worse state and every time a Conservative Government have left office they have left it in a better state.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Labour-run North Lanarkshire Council is moving early years practitioners down from grade 9 to grade 7. They have been given the option either to take a pay cut of up to 30% or move to another job within the council. Not only will that have a detrimental impact on children and families, but it will push many early years practitioners, who are predominantly women, into financial hardship. I have met constituents who are deeply worried about the future. Given those concerns, will the Leader of the House make Government time for a debate on this alarming situation, which is fire and rehire?
Penny Mordaunt
Let me say two things on this to the hon. Lady. She will know that local government financing and allocations, and the budgets for that, are a matter for the Scottish Government. But where the UK Government can assist is in having been clear that threats of dismissal and re-engagement should not be used as a negotiation tactic. Dismissal and re-engagement should not be considered in that light and the Government have taken action on it. We have published a code of practice, which is currently going through a consultation, and it sets out employers’ responsibilities when seeking to change contractual terms and conditions. Once it is in force, an employment tribunal will be able to increase an employee’s compensation by up to 25% if the employer has unreasonably failed to comply. Obviously there will be a debate in both Houses of Parliament on that in due course, and I hope she will take part in that. We plan to bring forward a negative statutory instrument to give people confidence that they can stand up to these kinds of tactics.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
When will the Government bring forward the single-issue Bills they have promised to replace the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill with, so that we can see an end to live exports for slaughter and have a crackdown on the illegal smuggling of dogs and puppies?
Penny Mordaunt
My right hon. Friend speaks for many Members and many people around the country who care deeply about animal welfare. She will know that we are committed to bringing forward these measures. She knows that I will say that we will announce business in the usual way, but I hope that for some provisions in the Bill, for example those on primates, we will be able to do this more swiftly than would happen through the passage of the Bill.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Reclaim)
This week is Carers Week, when we acknowledge and recognise the tremendous work done by unpaid carers, week in, week out. Unfortunately, I have been contacted by a number of constituents who are now unpaid carers, having previously been paid carers until the vaccine mandate. Given that we now know that the mandated medical treatment does not prevent the transmission or contraction of the virus, may we have an apology and a statement from the Government, not only to my constituents, but to the 40,000 other professional carers who have been forced from their jobs on what is obviously a false premise?
Penny Mordaunt
I will make sure that the Secretary of State has heard the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. The care workforce is under tremendous pressure, with an enormous number of vacancies at the moment. He will know that the Secretary of State is looking not just at what we can do to bolster that workforce, but at the status of that job and the support people have in it.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Yesterday, no fewer than three 24-inch mains water pipes burst in my constituency, causing extensive flooding, traffic chaos and a widespread lack of clean water across my constituency. The good news is that two have been repaired today, but the third repair is still outstanding. That comes on top of the chaos that has been caused by Affinity Water replacing the water mains, supposedly as an improvement. So may we have a statement or a debate in Government time on the action being taken across the country to replace outdated water mains, so that the chaos that ensued in my constituency is not spread across the country?
Penny Mordaunt
I am extremely sorry to hear about this ongoing issue in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I will certainly make sure that the Secretary of State has heard his concerns about this, as the next departmental questions are not until 6 July. I just wish to put on record my thanks to all those who are working in his constituency to make sure that vulnerable people in particular are looked after at this time.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Can we have a debate, please, about the Crown Estate? It took ownership of a canopy by some shops in Little Sutton in my constituency, although it claims that it does not actually own it, because it does not want to repair it. However, it still owns it in the sense that it would charge the council £5,000 to take over responsibility for it. At the moment, no one is taking responsibility for it, and it is dangerous. We are in this silly legal lacuna where no one seems to want to deal with the problem. Given that the Crown Estate gives hundreds of millions of pounds a year to the Treasury, it seems ridiculous that we are in this state, so I wondered whether we could have a debate on how the Crown Estate actually operates.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We could have a debate about that, but I suggest another course of action, which is that I will write to ask the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to give him some advice on how this situation can be resolved. Whether it is the situation that he describes or dilapidated buildings that cannot be redeveloped or sold by the owner, we have to find ways around these tricky, knotty problems, and I would be happy to try to assist him to do that.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
In the weeks since the BBC announced cuts to local radio, there have been many events and questions in this House and elsewhere. Sadly, however, that seems to have had little effect. If we are to retain the BBC as a national broadcaster, perhaps it is opportune now to have a debate about the role and the financing of the BBC. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on that in Government time?
Penny Mordaunt
I know that this is a matter of huge concern to many Members across the House and their constituents. As I have said previously, local radio is not just a lifeline in communities, but fundamental to scrutiny and therefore the functioning of our democracy, which matters to all of us in this place. I suggest that my hon. Friend raises this matter again at the next Culture, Media and Sport questions, which are on 15 June. Certainly, local radio is one thing that people really look to the BBC to provide for our country.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
I commend the House of Commons Commission for the thorough consideration that it has given to the topic of risk-based exclusions and the report that it published this week with recommendations for how we can improve our internal procedures, including better alignment with the criminal process, to ensure that Parliament is a safe working environment, and that safeguarding measures can be put in place around those under investigation while serious allegations are considered. This is not a party political issue but a House issue, so can the Leader of the House explain why Monday’s debate will be a general debate on risk-based exclusions and not a motion on the adoption of these recommendations in her name, and can she tell us how much longer we can be expected to wait for long-overdue progress?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady is right: this is a matter for the House. I thank all members of the Commission and the staff of the House who have worked on the report, which included a consultation with Members, and brought forward these proposals. What is critical is that it is the House that decides. There have been requests, including from three Committees of the House, that we debate these proposals. Certainly, it is the intention of both the Commission and myself to bring forward a motion following that debate. There is time to do that before the summer recess. I am sure that all members of the House want to improve our practices, but it is important that Members of Parliament are allowed a say on that and that we arrive at a scheme that is not just the best it can be, but welcomed by all Members.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
First, may I apologise to you, Mr Speaker, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) for barging in earlier without being aware of who was speaking?
Belper leisure centre in my constituency is under financial pressure, mainly due to increased energy bills. The leisure centre also provides sports facilities and exam spaces for the local school and is a real community hub. May we have a statement about Government support for leisure centres and how the Government are working with local councils and energy companies to keep these crucial community hubs open?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and many activities are supported by buildings such as the one she describes. I would suggest that she raises the matter at the next Energy Security questions on 4 July, but she will know that we are providing the energy bills discount scheme, which provides a baseline discount on energy bills to non-domestic customers, until 31 March next year. We recognise the importance of leisure centres in communities, which is why we have announced more than £60 million of new funding for public pools in England. That will be very welcome to a lot of leisure centres.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
You have been very generous to me this morning, Mr Speaker, and I am very thankful. Does the Leader of the House agree that, with the decline of print newspapers in regions and towns, it is vital that the BBC maintains good coverage of local and regional politics and news? Has she seen what has happened in my region around Leeds, with the decline of and cuts to Radio Leeds and television coverage? May we have an early debate on the importance of regional and local coverage to local communities?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman echoes the concerns raised by many Members of the House about the decisions the BBC is taking. If he applied for a debate, I am sure it would be well attended, but again I shall make sure that the relevant Secretary of State has heard his concerns.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I very much welcome the work the Department for Education has been doing to improve the situation on special educational needs and disability school places. I have heard a good deal from the headteachers of Sunshine House and the Eden Academy in my constituency, and I have heard the same from many other hon. Members: there is an acute short-term problem affecting the availability of special school places. Is it possible to have a statement from the Government so that Ministers can set out the measures being taken to address that short-term pressure and indicate when the measures consulted upon will feed through into a new system to ensure that every child with SEND has the school place they need?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. It is vital that every child is able to reach their full potential and the Government are committed to that. He will know that every local authority in England will see a minimum per-head increase of 9.8% to their total needs allocations for 2023-24 compared with the previous year. We are also investing £2.6 billion between 2022 and 2025 to create new places to improve existing provision for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities who require alternative provision. It is an incredibly important matter. On the issue of short-term costs, I shall make sure the Secretary of State for Education has heard my hon. Friend’s comments today.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Can we have a Government statement on the asylum backlog? My constituent is from a prominent Iranian family; one brother is an international referee and another is a former Iranian politician, and both brothers are in exile. My constituent had to flee for her life, literally with the clothes on her back. Her children are still in Iran. There has been no movement on her case and she is in the backlog of asylum seekers, but we urgently need a decision. Will Leader of the House raise the matter with her colleagues in the Home Office, and can we have a statement from Government on the matter?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear about this case. Following business questions, I will certainly ensure that the Home Secretary is aware of such cases. If the hon. Lady passes me more details and reference numbers, I shall include those in the letter. I remind her and all Members of the House that the Home Office is running bespoke surgeries for such cases. If she has any difficulty in accessing them, please let me know and I will address that. I announced in the business a debate on 15 June in which she might also raise her issue.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
I had the pleasure of attending a surprise party for Special Constable Brian Hewlett at the Sub Rooms last week. Brian has undertaken 50 years of public service as a special constable in Stroud—50 years of volunteering alongside his work and family commitments—and thankfully, he will continue. All six Gloucestershire MPs, the police and crime commissioner Chris Nelson, and Chief Constable Rod Hansen are huge champions for special constables. We know what they do locally and around the country. Will my right hon. Friend consider whether Parliament can hold an event or debate to show support for that vital part of our police force?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sure that I speak for all Members of this House when I say thank you, Brian, for a life- time of service to your community. What an achievement; what a service. It is an incredibly important role, not just for the knowledge that those individuals build up in their communities, but for the trust and rapport that they build. I think that that would be an excellent subject for a debate. I hope that Brian and all his colleagues will be having a good old knees-up this week.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
On the last day before recess, the House was due to debate the important topic of tackling Islamophobia, which we have not had the chance to do in the Chamber since 2019. Unfortunately, following a raft of ministerial statements, including some that did not tell us anything new, the debate had to be cancelled owing to the lack of time. Will the Leader of the House urge her Government to demonstrate their commitment to tackling that insidious form of hate by bringing forward a debate in Government time on tackling Islamophobia?
Penny Mordaunt
I shall certainly ensure that the Home Secretary hears the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. We are committed to tackling that scourge. He will know the other options that he has to apply for a debate, including the advert from the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee, and I encourage him to do so.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
I have received a joint letter from the rail users associations of Merseyside, Cheshire, Shropshire, Wrexham and Flintshire confirming what my constituents and I already knew: Transport for Wales, which is owned by the Welsh Labour Government, operates a north-east cross-rail service that is
“overcrowded, using dirty old rolling stock, and fraught with severe delays, cancellations and poor passenger communication”.
The associations conclude that Transport for Wales has failed. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the people of Wrexham deserve better than cattle class?
Penny Mordaunt
I am very sorry to hear about this ongoing issue in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Her constituents deserve better. She will know that since 2010, we have spent on average over 25% more in real terms every year on support for the railways than the Labour Government did. I am very sorry to hear that the Labour Administration in Wales are letting people down, but I know that the rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), is planning to have a meeting with the Welsh Deputy Minister for Climate Change, under whose remit this comes, to see what can be done to improve the services. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) for her work to try to rectify this sorry situation.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I remind the House of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Might we have a debate in Government time, to be answered by a Treasury Minister, on the budget available for future farming support payments? The current settlement runs only until 2024. The Leader of the House will know that agriculture, of all industries, needs long-term certainty, especially as we redesign the systems for delivering that mechanism. The Government talk a very good game about the importance of farmers and crofters in our food security, but we need to hear from the Treasury whether they will put their money where their mouth is.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising that important matter. He will have heard the announcement that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs made this week with regard to all aspects of rural life. Clearly, in arriving at that plan, she has been speaking frequently with the Treasury. I shall make sure that both she and the Treasury have heard the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
In the light of the Prime Minister’s stated ambition that all pupils should study some form of mathematics until the age of 18, can a Minister come to the Dispatch Box to explain the progress on that? May I suggest that the Department for Education looks at working with external providers such as the UK Mathematics Trust and the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute, which have demonstrable success in promoting mathematics to those at all levels?
Penny Mordaunt
This is very important and is clearly a priority for both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education. My hon. Friend will know that they have convened an expert advisory group, and I think that the examples he gave would be of great interest to them. I shall make sure that the Secretary of State has heard of his particular interest, and I encourage him to raise the matter with her on 12 June.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
First, let me join the Leader of the House in congratulating my many friends and relations who are supporters of West Ham United, which I note is another successful team with a Scottish manager.
What happened on Tuesday was obscene. The House rose less than three hours after proceedings commenced because the Government could not table enough legislation, yet there are dozens of private Members’ Bills scheduled for debate on 24 November—to name two, the Food Poverty Strategy Bill and the Workers (Rights and Definition) Bill. Will the Leader of the House take it into consideration that if the Government do not have enough legislation to put to the House, there is enough legislation proposed by Members to be debated and discussed in this Chamber?
Penny Mordaunt
With regard to West Ham, there are many successful Scottish managers, but, alas, not in the Scottish Government. There are also many good private Members’ Bills and topics for them, and I know that people are looking at the fourth Session as well. As I said in my opening remarks, we have introduced 40 Bills in this Session, and we continue to make progress. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, we have also made time for private Members’ Bills, and we have supported and backed many of them passing through this House.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
I recently attended an event to celebrate the 80th anniversary of St John Ambulance in Halesowen, where I met young volunteer first aiders, as well as speaking to Judith Morris, who has been an inspiring and long-standing advocate for St John Ambulance in Halesowen. May we have a debate about the important role that St John Ambulance plays in many of our communities across the country?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for making that incredibly important point. I am sure that all of us across the House value the work that St John Ambulance does for the NHS and elsewhere in our communities. We should not forget its assistance during the vaccine roll-out and in placing volunteers in NHS hospitals to undertake a range of clinical and administrative tasks. It is an incredible organisation and one of the things we think about when we think of the voluntary sector in the United Kingdom. I thank my hon. Friend for enabling us all to say congratulations and thank you to St John Ambulance. I hope that the unit in his constituency will be having an appropriate celebration for its 80th year.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
Crown post office branches provide a range of vital services to local communities, but sadly many are at risk of closure, with the House of Commons Library suggesting that nine branches were closed between 2020 and 2022 alone. Thankfully, in Stockport our Crown post office was saved from closure, but elsewhere, closing flagship branches, getting rid of experienced staff and putting counters in the back of other shops is not the plan for growth or innovation that the post office network so desperately needs. The Communication Workers Union’s “Save our Post Office” campaign has rightly called for a halt to the closures and a new strategy for the post office network as a matter of urgency. As such, will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on the future of Crown post office branches and the impact that they have on high streets such as mine in Stockport?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important matter: this is a critical service for many communities. He will know that the Government have brought forward both funding and support to enable local communities to retain such facilities that are not viable on their own. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to raise this matter with the Secretary of State, but I will also make sure that they have heard his remarks today, to see whether there is any further advice that they can give him in retaining that important facility for his constituents.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
Parents in Erewash tell me that while they fully respect the rights of trade unions to campaign on behalf of their members, they want classrooms to remain politically impartial. Can we have a debate in Government time so that we can discuss the increasing politicisation of our children by the NASUWT and other teaching unions through sham campaigns, such as the one I recently received on schools-based counselling?
Penny Mordaunt
Yes: those episodes are thankfully rare, but they are very disturbing when they do happen. My hon. Friend will know that we have published clear and comprehensive guidance that should help those working with, and in, schools to better understand their legal obligations. It is not helpful to children’s education if they are distracted from curriculum activities by such forms of protest and indoctrination. I think it is an excellent topic for a debate, but I also encourage my hon. Friend to raise the issue at the next Education Question Time on 12 June.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Tomorrow is 9 June, and that means the Blaydon race. Thousands of runners will be gannin’ alang the Scotswood Road, along the route set out in the famous Geordie Ridley song, “The Blaydon Races”. I wish all the runners the best of luck, and thank the race organisers, the Blaydon Harrier and Athletics Club, for making sure that this great tradition continues. It is important that we keep our local cultural and sporting traditions, so can we have a debate in Government time on how best to do that?
Penny Mordaunt
I speak on behalf of everyone in this place in sending our thanks to the organisers and giving our best wishes for a successful race, which is not only a fantastic sporting and fitness event but a tremendous cultural and heritage one in the hon. Lady’s constituency. If she were to apply for an Adjournment debate on the topic, I think that it would be well attended.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
My constituent Teagan Appleby is one of nearly 50 children who are reliant on medical cannabis to manage their severe epilepsy, although only three children have had access to medication on the NHS since it was allowed, due to a logjam between the Department of Health and Social Care and local and national NHS services. Time is running out for Teagan, whose private doctor is retiring and consequently she will no longer be able to get that medication through private prescription. May I ask my right hon. Friend for a Government statement setting out what steps will be taken to urgently address this issue, which is of great concern across the House for those who have young constituents like Teagan who rely on access to medical cannabis for severe epilepsy ?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear about this case. My hon. Friend will know how to apply for a debate, which I am sure that many Members would want to attend, but she is right to say that this is a time-sensitive matter for her constituent. I know that the Department of Health and the Care Quality Commission have been working with private providers to ensure continuity of care for patients affected by the retirement of their current prescriber, so I will write today to the Department and ask that officials immediately contact my hon. Friend’s office to see whether the work they have been doing can assist her constituent, who should have access to the medical care they need.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
New figures published this morning show that almost a third of teachers quit within five years of qualifying. The Government miss their own teacher training targets so often that they are not worth the paper they are written on. Our children are being let down as a result, and millions are being taught by teachers who are not qualified in their subjects, particularly in maths and physics. May we have an urgent debate in Government time to discuss the crisis in teacher recruitment and retention, so that every child has the opportunity to learn from a great teacher? It is the very least our children deserve.
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady is right that every child should have the benefit of excellent teaching, and part of that is ensuring that we have the right number of teachers and in particular that they are teaching their specialist subjects. She will know that teacher numbers are up 2,800 on last year, and the figures out today show a positive trend. It is not just about those numbers but retaining teachers longer, for the wealth of experience they bring to the classroom. Teacher numbers are being increased not just through our moves to address workforce issues but through the reforms that we have brought into schools.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Ind)
In Blackpool, Windmill House retirement complex residents have seen their weekly service charge rise from £17 to £51—an increase of 200% for the elderly residents, most of whom are on a fixed income. That has caused significant hardship and has left some relying on charity to get by. The Government have promised further reform in this area, but can the Leader of the House indicate when such legislation is likely to come forward? Can she speak to her Cabinet colleagues about the need to incorporate controls on communal service charges as part of any changes?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman will know that I will announce further business for this House in the usual way, but he raises an incredibly important point. He may well be aware—perhaps it would be worth his talking to his local authority about discretionary housing payments—that these matters are being looked at by the Secretary of State to see what further protections we can give to such tenants. I will make sure that the Secretary of State has heard the hon. Gentleman’s remarks today. He will know that the next departmental questions will be on 10 July.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Despite strong opposition in South Shields to 5G masts, which are deeply unpopular, local views are being completely ignored due to Government-led permitted development rights. Can we please have a statement from the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities explaining why the Government always favour private developers over the voice of local communities?
Penny Mordaunt
I do not have the details of the case that the hon. Lady refers to, but I will contact the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to see whether its officials can provide any guidance or advice on what she can do to ensure that she represents her constituents. Far from what she claims, this Government have done a tremendous amount—enabling neighbourhood planning forums to be established and giving them legal weight is just one example—to ensure people can not only have their say on particular developments but get involved in the design and planning of major developments from the off.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
The Leader of the House will know of the importance of good broadband connectivity for our constituents and the businesses within our constituencies. The new Department for Science, Innovation and Technology has announced a rural connectivity champion. This House has not been given any updates since the Prime Minister announced the new Department of what the champion will do, or indeed what the Department plans to do with its budget to improve connectivity. My deindustrialised Ogmore constituency is full of valleys and rolling hills and also has poor broadband connectivity. Can the Leader of the House find time for the Secretary of State of the new Department or a Minister to come to the House to set out what they will do to tackle the ongoing problems of poor broadband connectivity?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman will know that broadband has been a huge focus, particularly in rural areas and areas that have not historically been well served. It has been very much part of the work that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has done and announced in her plans to support such communities. The next questions to the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology are on 14 June, and I encourage him to raise the matter there. He will know that it is a priority for the Government, and we are investing billions in ensuring that everyone in the UK can access high-speed broadband.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
In her last statement, the Leader of the House announced that there would be 10 sitting days in September between the summer and conference recesses. Has she given any consideration to doing something innovative with that time—for example, virtual or hybrid settings, or perhaps meeting outside London—because that would allow restoration and renewal to proceed a little bit more smoothly and it would allow us to pilot some more 21st-century ways of conducting our business?
Penny Mordaunt
For this year, we are not able to do that. In future years, we may have an R and R programme that might enable us to remain in this place, which I know is a concern to many people. Because of the new technology, we have many other options at our disposal—for example, if we wanted to extend the time people could work on this Chamber, which is an option that I know all those involved in R and R are considering. This year, there is not the need to do that or the forewarning to be able to do it, but I know the hon. Gentleman will continue to press to ensure that we do R and R in the most sensible and practical way possible.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
During my recent visit to West Middlesex University Hospital, I met an amazing group of women working there who between them have experienced the many and varied symptoms of the menopause. They told me that, because of the excellent workplace-based support they get, they no longer feel they have to leave their jobs or go part-time, or in other ways flatline their careers and thus their contribution to the NHS. Will the Leader of the House find Government time for a debate on the menopause and the impact it has on women in work, and therefore the impact it has on the economy and our public services?
Penny Mordaunt
I congratulate all those whom the hon. Lady describes on their work to support women in the workplace and to enable them to thrive while continuing to work. She will know that the Government have appointed a menopause champion, and a large part of their role is looking at precisely the interventions that employers can make to support women in work. It is about time that we shone a spotlight on the good work that is going on to encourage other employers to follow suit.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The kidnapping, murder and abuse of Yazidi women and girls carried out by ISIS or Daesh was a genocide. It was brutal, violent and horrible, and some of the stories, photographs and videos are the stuff of nightmares. That was really bad, but I want to share a good story, if I may, because just this week six Yazidi women were rescued from Islamic State captivity in Syria and reunited with their families. That was on 3 June—this Saturday past—in Erbil. Despite this piece of good news, there are still some 2,700 missing Yazidi women and children, who were abducted by Islamic State in 2014. That was nine years ago and they are still missing, so questions must be asked. I genuinely appreciate the efforts of the Leader of the House and others in the House who do things to help. Will she facilitate a meeting with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to discuss recent efforts in finding those 2,700 women and girls and uniting them all with their families once again?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman again for raising an incredibly important point. We know, from those who have been rescued, the appalling fate that awaits people who have been kidnapped and held as sex slaves by ISIS, and many have attempted suicide rather than face the ordeal that lay ahead. What the hon. Gentleman has done today—as well as asking me to facilitate that meeting, which I shall undertake to do—is to remind all people that we will never take our eyes off these women until we have managed to get all of them back home. It was also very good of him to share with us that good news, which I also saw this week, of the group of individuals who were rescued and are now back with their families. That is what we want for all of them, and we in this place will not take our eyes off them until that is the case.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I and my office have been supporting the family of my constituent Gary Watson Shearer, who went missing while on holiday in Lanzarote in March. They are at their wits end. Although there has been engagement with the British consulate, the last update was in April and there does not seem to be much in the way of progress at present that Gary’s family have been made aware of. Will the right hon. Lady give her colleagues in the FCDO a nudge on Gary’s case and also make time for a debate in this place on the consular support available to our constituents?
Penny Mordaunt
I know that the hon. Gentleman has used the consular services, as have many other Members, and they do an excellent job, as I know from my experience of working with them. They are obviously there in the immediate aftermath of a particular incident, and it is very much down to our staff in-country to ensure that he and others are being updated on such cases. I will make sure that the FCDO has heard his concerns today and hope he will get an update, and we all pray for the family that it is a good update soon.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
In 2017 the National Library of Medicine published a paper considering the challenges for radiology in the UK post Brexit, which stated that
“the uncertainty and speculation surrounding Brexit is unlikely to be beneficial to the recruitment and retention of EU doctors, including radiologists and potential radiologists.”
Today, as the Tories and Labour cling to Brexit, we see huge shortages of radiologists, which is severely impeding cancer treatment across the UK and costing lives. Will the Leader of the House make a statement setting out any concerns she may have about the impact of Brexit on our NHS services across the UK, which is actively preventing us from saving the lives of cancer patients?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this topical matter, because there are some figures and a report out today specifically looking at radiology. She will know that we are increasing the size of the workforce. It is one of our priorities and a manifesto commitment. As I said in my opening remarks, in primary care we have already hit our manifesto commitment of recruiting an additional 26,000 people into the workforce; indeed, we have exceeded it—it is close to 30,000 as of today.
Specifically on radiology, this has long been an ongoing issue and it predates Brexit. It is about people with particular individual qualifications. We can take the workforce from other nations, as the hon. Lady knows. I do not think her linking this specifically to our leaving the trading bloc of the EU is correct, but I know the Secretary of State is very focused on the issue.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Leader of the House for responding to business questions for an hour and 10 minutes.
Points of Order
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is about communication today between the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), and the Home Secretary. To give a quick recap, on Monday the Home Secretary gave what I understand to be inaccurate information to Parliament when she claimed that the asylum decision backlog is down by 17,000 since the Prime Minister’s statement. That contradicts what the Home Office’s published statistics say; they seem to make it very clear that the “asylum initial decision backlog”—it uses those precise words—has increased from 131,292 to 137,583 for the main applicants since the end of November and from 160,919 to 172,758 for total applications in the first quarter, which is clearly an increase. The shadow Home Secretary raised this with the Home Secretary first in the House on Monday, and the record was not corrected by the Home Secretary then or since, to my understanding. My right hon. Friend then wrote to the Home Secretary this morning.
Mr Deputy Speaker, have you received any notification from the Home Secretary of her intention to correct the record since Monday’s statement, and can you confirm that the ministerial code requires that
“Ministers should give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity”?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Lady for forward notice of her point of order. In response to question No. 1, no; and to question No. 2, yes. However, as she knows—this has been noted before—Ministers are responsible for the content of their answers, and it is therefore not a matter for the Chair. Those on the Government Front Bench will have heard her concerns and the Table Office can advise further on how she and other Members may pursue the matter.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On 16 October 2019, the Government published their annual update to the rail network enhancement pipeline. Regular RNEP updates are crucial for certainty for the rail industry and for our communities, who are desperate to see improvements in their local rail infrastructure. In September 2020, the then rail Minister confirmed that the RNEP would be updated “on an annual basis” and that
“An update of this will be published following the Spending Review.”
That was the November 2020 spending review.
In fact, through research by Ross McLaren and Holly Gosling in my office, we have discovered more than 40 subsequent occasions where Ministers have stated in Parliament that the RNEP will be published “very shortly”, “as soon as possible”, “in the near future”, “in the coming months”, after spending reviews or financial statements that have long come and gone, or similar. It is coming up to four years since the last annual update, and the House is still being informed—including this morning—“shortly” by Ministers. Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek your advice on what more I and other Members can do to ensure that Ministers stick to what they have committed to in their answers in this hallowed House and finally publish the annual RNEP.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for forward notice of his point of order. It certainly gives a new interpretation to the word “shortly.” However, I am afraid that I will have to give him a similar response to that I gave to the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire): those on the Treasury Bench will have heard what he has said and I hope that they will bring it to the attention of the relevant Ministers. The Table Office will help him to pursue the matter in other ways, should he not be satisfied.
Backbench Business
National Carers Week
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered National Carers Week and respite for carers.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us time to debate in the House today the important issue of unpaid carers. I thank, in particular, those Members who supported my application for the debate, including the right hon. Members for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) and for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), and the hon. Members for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) and for St Albans (Daisy Cooper).
As all hon. Members and those watching the debate will know, it is taking place during Carers Week, which is held each year to raise awareness of those caring unpaid for family and friends who are living with a disability or who are frail or unwell. It is led by Carers UK but supported by Age UK, Carers Trust, the Motor Neurone Disease Association, Oxfam GB, Rethink Mental Illness and the Lewy Body Society. I encourage everyone who does not already know to go and find out more about the brilliant work of all those organisations.
The latest census data from 2021 shows that millions of people—in fact, 5.7 million people across the UK—are currently providing some form of unpaid care for a friend or family member who, due to illness, disability, mental health or an addiction, cannot cope without their support. The majority of people providing that care are women. Indeed, many of us may be personally caring for someone, or will have someone in their family, or will know of friends or neighbours, who go to great lengths to support people they love. There are virtually no families untouched by this responsibility across the country.
I speak today as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on carers. I am a former Minister for care and had responsibility for unpaid carers when in Government. However, my first experience of this came when my mum was a carer for my grandmother, who was living with dementia. At the same time, I had just had my first baby—he is now 20. My mum was attempting to support me in bringing up a small baby and my grandmother who was living with dementia. She was part of the generation of sandwich carers we see across the UK, who are sacrificing their own health and wellbeing, their own relationships and their own profession to show such love and dedication for someone else.
We know that caring can be an incredibly profound experience. For many carers it is a very positive experience that enables them to build a very special bond with those they care for. In the vast majority of cases, it is driven simply by love. But we also know that it can take its toll on their own health and wellbeing. Caring can take such a different variety of forms. It can be anything from really intimate personal care to quite complex healthcare, right the way through to the emotional support of being a stable companion and providing encouragement to the person they care for. The care can be utterly lifechanging for those who receive it. One person said to me:
“The difference she makes to my life is unbelievable. She has given me back the freedom to actually go out and enjoy my life.”
However, we also know that caring can be extremely complex, and there is no denying that it can be exceptionally challenging as well. Indeed, too often the efforts that carers go to, to keep those they love safe and well, leaves people exhausted, burnt out and struggling to live a life beyond their caring responsibilities. As a result, many carers are extremely concerned and worried about the future. Beverly told me about her caring responsibilities and the impact they have on her life. She said:
“I am a full-time carer to my son who has Down’s syndrome and my husband who has Parkinson’s. By full time, I mean every hour of every day, day and night. I do it because I love them and I want them to have as good a life as possible. It is a never-ending round of jobs like cutting meals, making sure meds are taken, washing, appointments, making sure they are appropriately washed and dressed—and that is without having elderly parents to support. The sad thing is that you also forget to look after yourself.”
That is one of the biggest messages I want to get across today. Many carers like Beverly find that their relationships are impacted by their caring responsibilities because of a lack of support and recognition. That can lead to social isolation and mean that carers who are struggling to balance paid work and unpaid care have to leave the labour market or reduce their hours of work.
There are also significant financial costs associated with caring. Carers often use their own incomes and savings to pay for support services and care equipment for the people they care for. We also know that carers can face poorer health outcomes than non-carers, with a high proportion struggling with their own physical and mental health problems, and experiencing very low levels of wellbeing.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing the debate. She is right that there are so many unpaid carers across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. My brother was involved in a motorbike accident some 19 years ago, and my mother, my wife and my son all look after him. Conservative estimates say that £162 billion per year is saved through unpaid care. That is just one example of the vital nature of carers. The hon. Lady refers to the impact on those who care: the pressures psychologically, financially, emotionally and physically. Does she agree that some consideration must be given by Government for respite care? I know how important that is to some of my constituents. I suspect she will confirm that when she replies to me, but I think something needs to be done there.
Dame Caroline Dinenage
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Respite care comes up time and again as one of the big asks for unpaid carers. They want to carry on doing the role they are doing. They deeply love the people they are caring for. They take a huge amount of personal responsibility and pride with the care they are giving, but they need that little bit of support. Around the time of covid, in particular, we saw many, many unpaid carers going on for months, years even, without the ability for any kind of respite. The figure he quotes is crucial: £162 billion a year is the value that unpaid carers are saving our health and care system. That is an incredible amount of money. It is like a whole separate, second NHS, saving that amount of money. The huge pressures placed on the other NHS we have result in delays for unpaid carers in obtaining the primary and secondary healthcare appointments that they need. The record demand for our social care services means that carers are not getting the support that they need.
I want to spend a little time exploring some of those challenges in more detail. Other Members across the House will add their own voices. As I noted earlier, many carers are struggling with poor mental and physical health. According to Carers UK research, one in five carers says that their physical health is bad or very bad, 30% suffer from poor mental health and over a quarter say that they often or always feel lonely. Carers provide many hours of support for the people they care for, but very few are able to take a break from their caring. That results in tiredness and, in some cases, exhaustion and burnout. As the hon. Member for Strangford said, worryingly, 41% of carers have not taken a break from their caring role in the last year. A carer called Anton told me about the strain that caring is placing on him:
“It is hard, often draining and mentally and emotionally painful work, bordering on damaging. Due to my responsibilities and the amount I am depended on, I am often anxious, feel hopeless and depressed.”
Carers are not getting the support that they need from our health and social care systems, as both systems are under intense and increasing pressure. Many carers have experienced delays in accessing healthcare appointments and services. One fifth of carers who request a GP appointment have to wait more than a month to see a doctor, and over a third have had to wait more than a year for specialist treatments or assessment. That causes additional stress and anxiety, and results in many feeling isolated or forgotten about.
This year, only a quarter of carers said that they had undertaken a carer’s assessment in England—a statutory right under the Care Act 2014. Of those who received an assessment, many were concerned that it did not lead to any improvements in the support provided to them. Could the Minister outline what she is doing to ensure that those carer assessments are not only conducted but conducted properly and that the outcomes are delivered? In fact, 39% of carers said that they did not even know what a care assessment was—that is the severity of the problem. A carer called Trevor told me:
“I get no support whatsoever. It has taken nearly 4 years to get a carer’s assessment from the Local Authorities which is now imminent. I have no expectations whatsoever.”
What is the Minister doing to communicate with local authorities to make sure that those important carer’s assessments take place? Debbie contacted me to tell me:
“I’ve had no support whatsoever. Support seems to consist of ticking a box to say I’m a carer but nothing more.”
It is just not good enough.
I want briefly to touch on the financial impact that caring can have. The cost of living means that carers currently face unprecedented demands on their finances. Concerningly, more than half of carers say that they are extremely worried about managing their monthly costs. A quarter told Carers UK that they are cutting back on essentials such as food or heating, and over three quarters said that the rising cost of living is the main challenge that they will face in the coming year. Many have been desperately trying to find ways of saving money, but that can be difficult because, quite often, the people they are caring for need life-saving care equipment that requires energy, or they need to ensure that the person they are caring for is kept warm. David told me about the financial impact that caring was having on him:
“I have been a full-time carer for my wife for over 10 years, and I’ve found that the money I get doesn’t even cover energy bills. It’s a constant struggle: all unpaid carers want is enough money to pay our bills and still have something left over to buy things when we need to. We are saving the country a lot of money by doing what we do and some recognition would be appreciated.”
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing forward this crucial debate. The other day, I had the pleasure of visiting Tŷ Hafan, the children’s hospice of Wales, in my constituency. I heard many similar stories to those she is reporting, about how people are struggling with the cost of living, particularly if they are having to run expensive medical equipment, given the associated energy bills. It is brilliant that Tŷ Hafan provides not only crucial respite for families and those they support directly, but support and advice on the cost of living.
Dame Caroline Dinenage
That is absolutely right. The Government have spoken about a social tariff for energy, but identifying who the carers are and how they can access that support is vital.
Gary told me about the financial struggles he has because of caring:
“After giving up a reasonable salaried job to care for my wife, we fell into severe financial hardship and were resorting to food banks. When the cost of living crisis happened, it was so bad I had to take up part-time taxi driving, which takes me away from my care role, in order to survive, but I can only earn so much due to the limits imposed or lose the carer’s allowance.”
That is adding additional stress and complexity to his life.
Supporting carers to stay in or return to paid work is essential. We want to ensure that carers can live a life free from poverty in older age, but 75% of carers who are working alongside their caring responsibilities are worried about juggling work and care. Increasing numbers of employers are recognising the importance of supporting carers in the workplace, and it is vital that they maintain flexibility so that people can continue to do their incredible juggling acts.
Nicola told me that she had to give up her career as an embryologist to care for her daughter, who has Angelman syndrome. She said:
“We have no family support, no help from the council and my daughter is awake for hours in the middle of the night, which means that we are unable to sleep and are completely exhausted. The only income I now receive is carer’s allowance. We solely rely on my partner’s income, which covers our bills. We have already moved to a cheaper house, but it is still extortionate as we live in Surrey and my partner has to commute into London daily.”
Lucy, who cares for her disabled son, who has cerebral palsy, told me:
“I have had to give up my job as a company director as his needs and required medical operations means I cannot keep a job any longer. I have gone from having a £40k+ job and am now claiming carer’s allowance.”
Finally, more needs to be done to support and help carers to recognise themselves as carers. Many are not doing so, which means they are missing out on the support they need. Research that the charities involved with Carers Week released on Monday found that 73% of people in the UK who are providing or have provided unpaid care in their lifetime—roughly 19 million people—have not identified themselves as carers. Research also shows that half of all carers take over a year to recognise that they are in a caring role, with over a third taking over three years to recognise themselves as carers.
That is particularly pertinent to young carers, who may not know that they are carers. In many cases, their situation can be misinterpreted. Schools can perceive young carers to be bad students because they are not paying attention, when in many cases they are just extremely tired and stressed by their caring responsibilities. Schools need to go much further to identify young carers in their midst and to support them.
In cases where a young person is supporting a parent with mental ill health, there is a stigma attached and they do not want to tell their friends. I remember meeting one young gentleman at a carers’ festival that is run every year, which is a wonderful way of supporting young carers to live life like normal young people and enjoy themselves. He told me that his mother had made many attempts to take her own life and that, as a very young child, he had to get used to phoning 999 for the ambulance to take his mum away and save her. He never told his school about this because of the stigma attached to it; he felt deeply isolated and ashamed. We need to double down on our efforts to ensure we identify young carers in schools.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way; she is very generous. Figures mentioned in the press last week indicated that some 25% of those who care have mental stress, depression and concerns themselves. She has outlined that from a young person’s point of view—what she says clearly illustrates the need for Government to grasp the role of carers and the impact that role has on them.
Dame Caroline Dinenage
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the mental pressure put on carers because of the responsibilities they take on, but also because of the perceived lack of support or respite. It is important that we recognise that that can mount up and overwhelm people, and that they can experience burn-out and ill health.
I want to recognise the work of Governments across the UK and the range of actions they have taken to provide carers with more help and support. In England, the Government aim to support carers primarily through adult social care reform, but also provide support through the Better Care Fund. In the context of reform, I was pleased to note that there is a specific chapter on support for unpaid carers in the White Paper “People at the Heart of Care”, which states that the Government will
“build on the foundations of the carers action plan”
—which I published when I was Minister for Care—
“to set out a new strategic approach”.
I look forward to hearing more about that. Perhaps the Minister will give us further details about the timescales. I should also like to hear more about the £25 million investment that the Department of Health and Social Care has pledged to make in support of unpaid carers. I understand that the details will be announced shortly, but given that it is Carers Week, I should be grateful if the Minister could indulge us and give us a sneak preview of what might be coming up.
I should like now to think back, briefly, to the support that the Government provided to help carers through the pandemic. A number of measures were introduced, including a highly effective identification programme. The Government worked with local authorities, GPs and local carers’ organisations to identify new carers and ask them to come forward for the covid vaccine, for which they were prioritised thanks to fantastic lobbying work by Carers UK and the Minister—who was also the Minister at that time, although there have been a few bumps in the road since then. It is great to see her back in her place. The programme demonstrated an ability to identify carers that does not seem to be moving on into everyday life, and I should like to see that continue. The Government also relaxed some of the rules applying to claims for carer’s allowance, and I should like to see that continue as well.
Further significant steps have been taken in the last year. The Carer’s Leave Act 2023, which gained Royal Assent only last month, will provide dedicated employment rights for carers for the first time. I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), my hon. Friend, on her work in securing the passage of her private Member’s Bill, because the Act is a game-changer.
Despite those successes, however, I believe that much more needs to be done. Carers have contacted me to let me know about key areas in which they wanted more support. If the House will indulge me for a little longer, I will run through some quotations. Bryony told me that she wanted carers to be given more financial support:
“Carer’s Allowance should be higher to reflect the impact and reasons it is claimed. I didn’t choose not to work; I didn’t choose to lose a well-paid career. I will always choose my son, but the financial burden is destroying families.”
Tracy talked about the need to be able to take a break from caring:
“Respite is essential. If carers reach burnout, the person they care for could end up in care sooner. If you support the carer and they feel valued without having to worry about finances, they would be less stressed and able to cope day to day.”
Rebecca called for greater recognition for carers:
“I feel we are overlooked by all the groups in society. It makes you feel bottom of the pile in everyone's priorities.”
Sarah said that she needed better signposting to the support available to help carers with their responsibilities:
“It would be fantastic if there was a directory of support and benefits that are appropriate as soon as a diagnosis is recognised. For years we didn’t claim Personal Independence Payment and Disability Living Allowance for our daughter because we didn't know about it. For over ten years I didn’t know I was entitled to Carer’s Allowance. I also didn’t know for the last three years my daughter was entitled to elements of Universal Credit. This would have helped us as a family and taken the stress and pressure off for myself to be able to ‘fight’ in other areas of my daughter’s life.”
The testimonies that I have shared are my reason for being here today, and the reason I support the call from the charities that are backing Carers Week for the Government to establish a cross-departmental ministerial group to focus on the help that carers need. I was delighted to learn earlier this week of the Minister’s commitment to establishing just such a group. Carers’ issues do not fall solely within the remit of the Department of Health and Social Care; they are everywhere, involving everything from energy prices to the circumstances of the young carers we have spoken about, carers in employment and carers’ benefits. The establishment of the ministerial group will ensure that carers’ needs are understood and responded to at the highest level of Government, and will improve ministerial oversight of policies and measures that support unpaid carers.
It is my hope, and that of the all-party parliamentary group on carers, that this work will lead to the development of a full and financially supported national carers strategy. Such a strategy would help to ensure that we went further in respect of a range of measures to help unpaid carers, including improved data sharing to ensure that carers are identified and support and entitlements are not missed; better support for and identification of carers at key transition points—for example, when people move from children’s to adult’s services; more funding for social care to ensure that unpaid carers are given the support that they need once they have been identified; and a review of carers’ financial support and benefits, including carer’s allowance, to ensure that they are fit for purpose and prevent financial hardship.
I want to encourage all those in the House today, and those watching the debate, to involve themselves in the activities taking place during Carers Week, and to reach out to the thousands of people in each of our communities who do so much to support the people whom they love. I also want to encourage all Members who have not already done so to join the all-party parliamentary group—I hope you do not mind the quick advertisement, Madam Deputy Speaker—which I co-chair with Baroness Pitkeathley. We have some exciting plans for the coming year.
Let me end by saying what I say every year. While Carers Week is an important opportunity to recognise, for one week in the year, the extraordinary lengths to which carers go, we must also recognise that they go to those lengths every single day. Every week should be Carers Week. Day in day out, year in year out, carers work to ensure that their loved ones are cared for, are safe, and lead the best lives that they can. That is something that happens 52 weeks of the year.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
It is good that the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) has secured this important debate, because opportunities for the House to debate the difficulties faced by unpaid carers and to recognise their contribution are always valuable. However, this cannot be a recognition exercise alone. For too long carers have struggled to get by with little support from the Government, while at the same time providing many hours of highly skilled work. They have been worked to the brink for too long, and many now say that they are fed up with warm words. One unpaid carer, Rachel Adam-Smith, said:
“I cannot believe I am 19 years into my caring role and nothing has changed—other than the fact that I look more exhausted and feel more defeated.
We are given no time to rest, to look after our own health, to take a holiday or even to have a bath. We are all human, none of us are superhuman but unpaid carers are treated as though we are. We aren’t.”
Rachel asks:
“Will it ever change?”
Carers are right to feel disappointed and angry with the Government. As we heard earlier, research by Carers UK shows that a quarter of unpaid carers are cutting back on essentials such as food, and more than three quarters of carers said that the rising cost of living was one of the main challenges they would face in 2023. Gaddum, a charity in Salford, delivers the carers service contract for Salford City Council, which covers my constituency, and it shared with me some insights from a survey of the carers using its services, carried out in February this year. The survey found that 42% of carers’ finances had been negatively affected by their caring commitment, and 84% of carers’ emotional health had been negatively affected. One unpaid carer told Carers UK:
“To date I have sold both of our pensions, shares and insurances to maintain our living standards. They have all gone now so I had to start claiming Universal Credit last year. I have nothing left to sell and I am anxious that we are going to live in poverty for the rest of our lives.”
It is clear that the system of support for carers is not currently working. The financial situation is desperate for too many carers, and the direction of travel for Government policy is deeply concerning. Instead of helping unpaid carers with their unprecedented financial pressures last winter, the Government changed the arrangements for the warm home discount so that nearly 300,000 people with disabilities and their carers were no longer able to claim it. This spring they announced that they would reduce the already pitiful pot of money assigned to social care reform by at least £500 million. Support from the Government is falling away just as more and more carers fear having to cut back on essentials such as food and electricity.
The financial pressures resulting from those and other decisions taken by the Conservative Government have put a real strain on the mental health of carers. Gaddum has told me that carers’ own mental health has been the issue most frequently discussed through casework in the last few years. As the campaigner and unpaid carer Katy Styles recently warned, there is now a risk that carers will become cared for themselves. She said:
“Not only will local authorities and Government bodies be looking after the people that they care for, but also carers who are in a really bad way.”
The We Care Campaign, which Katy founded, does crucial work in amplifying the voices of unpaid carers. We Care is campaigning for more financial support for carers and to secure funding for carers’ breaks. The campaign is also pushing for longer-term solutions, including to the social care crisis, and a crucial national carers strategy.
As the right hon. Lady mentioned, the Government have failed to publish a national carers strategy. They consulted on one in 2016, gaining a lot of responses, yet ultimately the strategy was delayed and then abandoned. Some 6,500 unpaid carers contributed to that consultation, giving up what little time they had to invest their energies in providing details of their day-to-day caring roles. It was dismissive in the extreme for the Government to drop the proposed national strategy. Carers who had contributed to the consultation felt extremely angry. Katy Styles said at the time that:
“Whilst unpaid carers spent precious time informing a Strategy; that time and effort was wasted as that Carers Strategy was apparently scrapped. That’s how much carers’ lives matter.
A national strategy would set the tone on how society should value and support carers. Without a strategy; carers have no hope of being valued and supported.”
Nothing has changed in the past five years to give carers hope of being valued and supported. The 2018 to 2020 “Carers Action Plan” was a flimsy document shamefully void of funding and ambition. We have had nothing of any substance since then.
It is worth remembering that the national carers strategy published under a Labour Government 15 years ago was launched not by a junior ministerial group, as I think is being proposed in this cross-departmental roundtable, but by the then Prime Minister, and signed by all Secretaries of State. That commitment shown by Labour at the time was vital, because I understand that Care Ministers struggle to get that cross-departmental aspect—we have heard about how many Departments are involved.
The other thing is funding. When the strategy was updated in 2008, the last Labour Government pledged £255 million for new commitments to support carers. That included £150 million to increase significantly the amount of money provided by central Government for breaks from caring. The Carers Trust reports that unpaid carers consistently tell it that they value breaks and respite very highly. Carers say that taking a break from caring is beneficial for their health and wellbeing and can allow them to continue in employment. Yet funding for respite care has dried up since Labour’s national carers strategy, with the funding no longer earmarked for breaks as it was up to 2010. The current Conservative Government’s plan in the 2021 social care White Paper for five days of unpaid leave from care is woefully insufficient. It was also disappointing that the Government recently rejected the Lords Adult Social Care Committee’s recommendation on ringfenced funding for breaks. Carers Trust is now calling for a statutory right to respite breaks for unpaid carers across the whole UK.
Carers in Scotland have access to a national scheme giving unpaid carers access to breaks, and Wales will launch a national scheme in June. There should be a national scheme in England too, with local carer organisations as key partners, and it should learn from Carers Trust Wales when designing breaks for unpaid carers. A Carers Trust survey of over 2,500 unpaid carers found that 53% of respondents said a break from caring is what would make the biggest difference. Despite that, research from Carers UK shows that a quarter of carers have not had a single day off from caring in more than five years.
For many, unremitting caring takes a toll on their mental and physical health. Both the GP Patient Survey and 2021 census data show that carers are more likely than those not in a caring role to have a long-term health condition or to have reported “very bad or bad health” and to feel isolated and exhausted. Both studies also showed that the more intense a caring role is in terms of the hours of care provided, the more likely it is that carers will have poorer health outcomes.
The Social Care Institute for Excellence systematic review of evidence on carers breaks found that carers value breaks for a range of reasons: practical, emotional, social and psychological. For some carers, the break has value beyond its allotted time. For instance, looking forward to a break can have the same effect as the break itself. The importance of breaks is to be part of a whole-family approach and as a break from the caring routine, not just having time away from the person. Some carers prefer a break with the person they care for, or as a whole family, but just not when they have to do all the caring.
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend is making a crucial point. This is exactly what I saw recently at Tŷ Hafan in Sully in my constituency, where there is the option of hotel accommodation for the whole family on site near the person for whom they are caring, but without them having to undertake the full responsibility for care. A pristine natural environment also provides opportunities for the whole family to relax and get some quality family time together while having a break from their responsibilities.
Barbara Keeley
I thank my hon. Friend; that will sound very good to other carers.
Breaks can have a vital preventive role, sustaining the caring relationship and preventing carer stress, crisis and breakdown. There are key points where, if practical support and information had been provided, the negative impact of caring may be reduced. Breaks can reduce loneliness and isolation, enabling the carer, and the person they care for, to stay connected to family, friends and the things they enjoy.
We must face the fact that there has been a decline in the funding used to support carers breaks. Analysis by the Nuffield Trust of short and long-term data shows that 24,000 fewer carers were receiving breaks in 2020-21 than in 2015-16—a decline of 42%. It is no wonder that so many unpaid carers are exhausted. Claire, a carer from my constituency, told me that in order to attend the carers networking event in Parliament yesterday, the cost of alternative care for her mother was £33 an hour. She told me that there should be an alternative because the excellent Humphrey Booth Resource Centre in Salford has a four-bed unit for people with dementia. However, it cannot be used to offer respite care for Claire’s mother because it has been taken over to help with hospital discharge issues.
Another major issue facing many carers is that GPs and other NHS staff treating the person they care for often know nothing about their caring role, meaning that carers are not offered the support to which they are entitled, as we have heard. Another carer from Salford called Justine, whom I met in Parliament yesterday, told me that at the start of caring for her mother, who has dementia, she was offered no help or advice and did not know where to turn for support. Even when she asked social services for help, turnover of staff meant that different people were asking her to fill in the same forms again and again and that assessments were being done again and again. Justine said:
“You feel like you are treading water all of the time.”
Analysis by the Nuffield Trust shows that there was an 11% drop in the five years to 2020-21 in the number of carers in receipt of direct support. That is the equivalent of 13,000 fewer carers being given the choice and personalisation that direct support is designed to offer. That downwards trend is reflected in local authority gross expenditure on services for carers, which reduced by 11% between just 2015-16 and 2020-21. That has meant a reduction in the support offer available to carers. Local authorities provided fewer direct support payments and directed 36,000 more carers to information and advice only—that is all they got. Carers have since reported finding it harder even to access adequate advice and support, and satisfaction with carer support services generally is declining—hardly surprising.
Carers organisations know that proper identification of carers by the NHS would mean that carers could be supported much more effectively. Identification of carers is something I have campaigned on for many years. In 2012, I brought in a private Member’s Bill on the identification of carers that would have created a duty on the NHS to identify carers and to promote their health and wellbeing. The then Care Minister in the coalition Government would not support my Bill. Indeed, there is so much that could have been done in the past 13 years to avoid the appalling situation that too many unpaid carers now find themselves in, which has been made worse by the cost of living crisis.
We are here today because this is Carers Week, but care does not stop when Carers Week ends. The Government must urgently bring forward a long-term plan informed by carers and understood at the highest levels of Government. Ministers must learn to listen to unpaid carers—not just this week, but every week—and value their lived experience and insights. The We Care campaigner Katy Styles said that there are so many issues for the millions of carers whose voices she tries to amplify, but only a few of them were able to meet MPs yesterday. Katy told me:
“It’s a battle and a fight for everything. It’s grinding us down.”
We cannot continue to leave carers without proper support.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) for securing this debate. She is passionate about ensuring that we highlight the challenges carers face, and that we recognise the contributions they make to families and communities throughout the UK. I pay tribute to her excellent work as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on carers.
In National Carers Week, it is only right that we reflect on and appreciate the 5.7 million carers in our country, while exploring what more we can do to support them both financially and practically. We also have to recognise that the number of carers will only increase. Life expectancy continues to increase as more people live longer with more health conditions and as children survive with conditions that, in previous generations, might have meant they never survived the womb, let alone birth—they are now living for maybe decades, and their parents have to provide most of the care.
Yesterday I was honoured to meet Age UK, the Carers Trust, Oxfam GB, the Motor Neurone Disease Association, Rethink Mental Illness and the Lewy Body Society at the National Carers Week parliamentary reception. These organisations are vital in supporting carers across the UK, and I pay tribute to their professionals and volunteers for the support they provide.
I understand, on a very personal level, the difficulties that being a carer brings. So many women, as my hon. Friend mentioned, have caring responsibilities—we know that women make up the majority of carers. Many of us are employed and keeping down jobs, and we often had our children later in life, so our caring responsibilities come at a time when our children need us, particularly as teenagers, and our parents need us because they are reaching an age at which they may have health issues. We are the sandwich generation, as is now well known. Believe me, I know it is not an easy task to juggle all these responsibilities.
I have personal experience, as I supported my mum when she was looking after my father after he was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, and I saw the mental, physical and financial toll it took on her. What I take away from that personal experience is that caring is really, really lone, and it was particularly lonely during covid. I cannot imagine how it was for the millions of people who were isolated at home and having to look after a family member with a condition such as Alzheimer’s. The thing about Alzheimer’s is that we lose our loved one twice. We lose them as the Alzheimer’s and dementia progress, and then we lose them when they die.
I remember looking after my father for a week in August 2021, when my mum had a week of respite care. It was one of the hardest things I have done in a long, long time. I was trying to juggle my parliamentary work at the same time. Thank goodness for test cricket and the Hundred, because my father was an avid cricket fan all his life. When I was looking after him, we had the India test during the day and the Hundred in the evening, so that kept me sane. I do not know how the amazing carers across the country cope.
Because of my own experience, and because of speaking to so many carers across the Cities of London and Westminster, I was proud to support the Carer’s Leave Act 2023, which was introduced by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain). I was delighted to sit on the Public Bill Committee, and I congratulate her on the Act receiving Royal Assent. It will make such a difference, as it means unpaid carers will now be entitled to at least five extra days off a year, helping more carers to stay in employment. According to Carers UK, 600 people a day leave work due to care duties, and the Act recognises that those people need the flexibility to take time off work for their loved ones.
In 2020, more than 7 million people in employment had the added responsibility of unpaid caregiving. Of course, those combined work and care responsibilities can lead to people getting very little rest, which explains why 71% of carers report having poor physical or mental wellbeing, according to the Mental Health Foundation. That is why I fully support the Government’s “Next steps to put People at the Heart of Care” report, which includes a £25 million funding package for unpaid carers, although I would obviously like to see that funding increase.
We must also remember that many carers are too young to be employed. I take this moment to recognise the role played by young carers, of whom there are approximately 800,000 across the UK, which is a staggering number. These children—they are often very young children —and young adults embody compassion, responsibility and maturity beyond their years. On average, young carers devote around 17 hours a week to their caring duties, according to Carers UK. Just imagine the sacrifices they make. Their selfless acts of love go unnoticed by many.
I was first exposed to this issue when I worked at the Children’s Society and was responsible for publicising a report on the lifetime effects of being a child carer. The report’s findings remain with me, because being a young carer has not only an immediate effect but a long-term effect on things like education, attainment and even personal and social confidence. I remember speaking to people who had taken part in the report—they were men and women in their 30s and 40s—and they still lived with what they called the shame of not being able to take friends home because they were embarrassed about what might be at home if their mum, as it usually was, had mental health issues, or of not being able to go to birthday parties or be proper teenagers with their friends because of their caring responsibilities. It has a lifetime effect on people’s confidence and life chances.
That being said, I am proud of the Government’s work to support young carers. Obviously there can always be more help, but through the extension of education, health and care plans to 19 to 25-year-olds, for example, thousands of families across the country have seen increased support.
I, like many Members in the House today, have spoken of the incredible sacrifice made by so many unpaid carers, whether financially or personally, but in National Carers Week we must not forget the professional care sector. We often speak about NHS doctors and nurses, who are so important, but the value of social care sector workers cannot be overestimated. I take this opportunity to thank our professional carers who support our loved ones in care settings and in their own homes. I saw that directly in how the outstanding carers looked after my father with such respect, love and devotion at the Bellavista care home in Cardiff bay before he passed away last year. My mum was a hairdresser working in care homes and day centres, and I used to help her in the summer holidays, so I saw the vital respite care that the Ely day centre in Cardiff gave to so many families.
Across the country, we see fine examples of sacrifice, love and selflessness every day, which is why it is so important that we have such debates—again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport for securing it—to recognise and thank the carers, and particularly the unpaid carers, across the UK. It is also why I fully support the Government’s new support for carers such as the 2023-24 better care fund, with £327 million earmarked to support local authority health and care services, including providing carers with advice, support, short breaks and respite services. It is so vital to ensure that we provide respite for carers.
I know at first hand how important this extra funding will be. When I was a council leader, approximately 40% of our annual budget was spent on adult social care, so we need to continue funding councils in this vital work. I also note what my hon. Friend said about the need to undertake care assessments a lot quicker and in a much more caring way. I hope the Minister has taken note of that comment, too.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I hear what my hon. Friend said about young carers. Does she recognise that there is a problem in identifying all young carers and that we must do more to identify all those who are providing that care service but going totally unnoticed in society?
Nickie Aiken
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and completely agree with him on that. Part of the problem, particularly for young carers, is that they are embarrassed, but they may also think that they could be taken into care—I fear for them on that. They think that because they are having to look after a parent, a social worker and local authority will perceive that they cannot cope. That is the last thing that any family needs to think about. When I was the children’s services lead at Westminster City Council, I did a lot of work with young carers and we had an amazing support network in Westminster for young carers. They can be so young—as young as eight or nine—and it is therefore important that we identify them. We must also give them and their parents assurances that this is not about taking them away, but about giving the children and the parents the support they need.
I am also glad to see that the Minister is due to hold a cross-Government roundtable with other Ministers to make sure that carers’ needs are recognised not just in social care, but in every aspect of their lives. That is a theme we have discussed today. This is about not just the daily grind of caring—the responsibilities and the tiredness—but the financial and other help that is needed.
Making sure that carers are recognised in health, social care and education is a priority, along with helping people to recognise themselves as carers so that they can tap into local carers networks and apply for the financial support that is available. That will be crucial for carers across the UK. That is why I look forward to continuing my work with the Government to ensure that all adult unpaid carers and young carers across not only the two cities of London and Westminster, but the whole country, are supported financially, emotionally and physically. We owe them all a huge debt.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. It is obvious to the House that we have plenty of time this afternoon and there is not enormous pressure. I certainly do not wish to impose a time limit on speeches, but all so far have been longer than they ought to have been. I ask Members to keep speeches to under 10 minutes, because this is not the only debate today; another debate follows and it is fairly heavily subscribed. What Members have to say can usually be said pretty well in under 10 minutes, rather than in well over that.
I call Wendy Chamberlain.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) on securing this debate and on the work she does as chair of the all-party group on carers. The debate is testament to the work done by her and by other Members in the Chamber who have direct experience or have been involved in this space for some time. I have been on a bit of journey since securing a slot in the private Members’ Bill ballot and taking forward my work on carer’s leave. I wish briefly to pay tribute to a number of groups I have met while doing that. In St Andrews, we have a group, supported by Fife carers, called the CRAP Carers—compassionate, responsible and patient carers. It is a remarkable group, mostly made up of women—the hon. Lady mentioned how many of our carers are women —and they do incredible work to support their loved ones. I also want to highlight Fife Young Carers, which sadly lost its chief executive officer, Kirstie Howell, last month. I pay tribute to her and the work she did.
It is estimated that Scotland has up to 800,000 carers. My husband is one of them, as he looks after his mother, although he continues to refuse to recognise himself as such. The hon. Lady referred to a number of the challenges they face and the statistics on that. According to Carers UK, 45% of carers are currently unable to afford their monthly expenses and 83% are worried or extremely worried about managing them in the future. One of the most distressing things for me is that a third of carers are spending more of their money on products that they use for care, such as incontinence pads. The money is not coming to them from elsewhere and they are having to use their own resources for those things. Three quarters of carers receiving carer’s allowance or the carer element of universal credit are worried about energy bills and other bills, and are concerned that they will be unable to heat their home to a safe level. We know, and have discussed in this House many times, that it costs even more money to be disabled, and a number of people care for those with disabilities. We need to be aware of that.
We must not forget our young carers. We are waiting for the census results in Scotland, but the census in England and Wales shows that about one in 21 of our 16 to 24-year-olds are carers. They face difficulties with finances and accessing education. During my work on my Carer’s Leave Bill, I became concerned that we could create conditions where young carers will never have the opportunity to enter the workplace, particularly given the cliff edge that carer’s allowance presents.
I wish to highlight the story of one constituent, who wishes to remain anonymous, as it demonstrates some of the challenges. She cares for her elderly mum, who has Alzheimer’s, mobility issues and long-standing mental health issues. There is live-in care, but she still spends hours on care and care-related administration. Another source of guilt for carers is that they are spending so much time on the admin associated with caring that they feel they are not getting the opportunity to do the caring. Nursing visits happen unannounced, so they do not have proper information and she does not have the time to arrange to be there sometimes. Telephone appointments with GPs and hospitals are not at definite times. She describes putting her camera and mute on during Teams meetings to answer calls, rather than miss an appointment; that is a difficult balance for carers who are working. She says:
“Personally, I have felt unable to commit to a full time workplace based job for a very long time because I feel I would end up letting my employer down as care stuff with mum takes up so much time or I would end up too ill to work myself. It’s not actually being present for Mum physically in our situation that takes the time now but the admin and domestic and financial matters and dealing with health professionals and issues arising with carers that takes time every day. To have enough flexibility at the moment I work several part time short contract jobs and so lack job security and have a lower income.”
We know that women in retirement face challenges because they have lower pension contributions to access, and these kinds of situation embed that. My constituent has described wanting to go back into full-time work and starting the process, but she has had to withdraw because of her mum’s health. That risk of leaving the workforce is high. I struggled to find constituents who would benefit from my Bill because many who were caring had already left employment. I am delighted to see my Bill become law, because for the first time unpaid carers have employment rights, but there is much still to do. I still think that carer’s leave should be paid, because carers need and are entitled to it.
We need to think about putting in place more carer-positive policies. I have been encouraged by my work with Carers UK and the positive employers it works with. The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), who is in her place, and I are Carer Positive-recognised businesses in Scotland; we went through that accreditation process. This would be a great thing for other parts of the UK to look at. I thought I was a good employer, but having to think about how I would approach certain circumstances made me consider how I can be more proactive.
On carer’s allowance, a quarter of carers receiving carer’s allowance or the UC element are using food banks to manage. Over the past 12 years, carer’s allowance has increased by only £15.20 per week, and there is also a limit on how much people can work. I met young carers earlier this week, and the limit while in education is 21 hours per week. The new T-levels, which the UK Government describe as a “gold standard” for young people, involve more than 21 hours a week. People doing T-levels who are caring will, therefore, be unable to claim carer’s allowance. The Scottish carer’s support payment is being rolled out in Scotland, and a number of the challenges I would raise in respect of carer’s allowance are being examined there, but, as always, we can do more.
Too many carers receive little or no wraparound support. We must not forget those who are full-time carers and unable to be in employment or education. In many ways, it feels like they have been forgotten. A statutory guarantee for respite breaks for unpaid carers is important: I have been contacted by several constituents who have highlighted the importance of respite, particularly for those who are sandwich carers. One said to me that, looking back on caring for her elderly mother over the course of her own retirement,
“it was the respite we missed and desperately needed more than anything at the time. We missed doing things together in our latter years, and nothing can bring those years back.”
I wish to highlight two places in my constituency. There is the Rings, near Chance Inn, where Moira and her team provide holidays for those who want to take breaks with their loved ones. The facilities and the efforts and care they provide are huge. Then there is Homelands in Lundin Links. What has been highlighted to me is that a number of our big hotel chains do not necessarily have all the disabled access and facilities that carers need to be able to take their loved ones on holiday, and to give them that degree of respite that a holiday would give. We should be requiring our hospitality services to do more. Again, I highlight the really good work of Euan’s Guide—basically, it is a Tripadvisor for disabled people—which I worked with in my previous job at Diageo. It provides an opportunity not just for disabled people to provide comments on facilities, but for businesses and organisations to talk about what they are doing.
To keep to your timescale, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will just mention briefly that my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) tabled an amendment to the Health and Care Bill that would have put a legal duty on the NHS to identify unpaid carers. Sadly, that did not receive Government support. I also highlight the previous private Member’s Bill of the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley).
There is a huge gap between the number of people who are seen to be providing care, or who have provided care, and those who see themselves as having done so. As a result, Carers UK estimates that 19 million people are missing out on support. I hope that my Act will start some of those conversations, so that people recognise that they are caring. Another issue is ensuring that it is not just people doing the physical care on the ground who are seen as carers. I highlight the admin issue here.
Finally, I highlight the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on carers and care workers, which, as well as reforming social care, would require the Government to carry out an independent assessment of support available to unpaid carers, including financial support and employment rights. The Government may not support it, but, hopefully, with the work that they are doing on the cross-Government ministerial group, they will recognise that there are elements of it that they can take forward.
I thank everybody in the House who has helped me to bring my private Member’s Bill forward. I thank, too, all the organisations that have engaged with us. The Bill is very much a first step, and I am sure that all of us here are thinking about what we can do next.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I will try to get through my 10-minute speech as rapidly as I can, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I chair a group of unpaid carers, and have been doing so for the past 18 months. They are all Labour party supporters. It is a Labour carers group because we seek to influence our own party’s policy. It is not set up on a sectarian basis; it is just that that is the motivation for our coming together. I wish to report back on some of the issues that have been raised in our discussions, and they reflect much of what has been said already.
One key issue is ensuring that carers are properly recognised. Recognition should then lead to the assessments. The reports that we get are that it is almost impossible in some areas to secure an assessment. We have to be honest in this debate. I am not trying to be party political here, but this is, I am afraid, about the cutbacks in local government. Councils are not capable of undertaking the assessments themselves, because of the loss of staff over recent years. Unfortunately, lack of assessments means lack of access to services themselves. That lack of a passporting mechanism is causing incredible suffering.
Another issue is that, even where there are assessments, there is a real concern about the lack of fully trained staff in the range of specialisms to deal effectively with the people involved. What that means is that the assessments are sometimes crude—this is not a criticism of the staff—and do not reflect the reality of what is needed. Again, this comes back to the resourcing of both the local councils and the NHS.
The other issue is exactly as reflected in the debate so far, which is that unpaid carers are often living in absolute poverty. Many of them have given up their own careers to care. They do so willingly, because they want to care for their loved ones, but at the moment many of them cannot survive on the benefits that they are receiving. We are grateful for the meetings that we have had with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall). The request of many in the group is clear: they want a real living wage to reflect the care that they provide. In the short-term, a measure that could be introduced fairly rapidly is at least for the carer’s allowance to reflect other caring allowances, such as maternity leave. Benefits in the past have been linked to earnings, but, because of the break with earnings, some benefit levels have been undermined over the past 20 to 30 years. If this carer’s allowance had kept pace with earnings, it would be double what it is at the moment, which would be somewhere near to the levels of maternity leave payments.
The other issue that has come up in our discussions is the plight of external carers. There is almost a sympathy for them—or an empathy with them—from the unpaid carers. As has been said, carers who go into homes are underpaid, not recognised and often disrespected. We must acknowledge that care has largely been privatised, which means that many of the workers are on very insecure contracts. The result of what I can only regard as exploitation is that they cannot provide the care that is needed in many instances, or that they struggle to do so.
I will not dwell too much on the issue of respite, which has been covered. None the less, the lack of access to, and the withdrawal of, respite in many areas because of cutbacks is causing real concern. The Government could focus on that as a priority in the development of their initial strategy.
Another concern, which is heartrending to hear about, is from those carers who are elderly or getting on. They are worried about the succession planning of care for the children or the people whom they care for when they are no longer around.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Primodos case highlights the tragedy that our constituents face? I have constituents who have suffered at the hands of Primodos and they are genuinely concerned as they get into their elderly years about how they will be able to care for their children, while the Government remain intransigent and refuse to support them.
John McDonnell
I am glad that the hon. Member has raised that issue. I have constituents in the same situation, and that overhanging worry has come out in our conversations. People worry about what happens when they are no longer here, or are not capable of caring. Having some form of succession plan in place is critical.
Briefly, there is a demand from the group that I work with—I think this is felt across the political spectrum—for an independent living and national social care service. The argument is that this should be based on the NHS principles: free at the point of need and paid for directly through taxation. The proposals that I have heard so far, including those from the Fabian Society which were published today, are somewhat limited and do not live up to the challenge that we face. They are somewhat anaemic.
We must be honest with everybody about the scale of the costs involved and how that can be funded. I am happy to run through a whole range of taxation measures, but I shall just put on the table equalising capital gains tax with income tax, which, the TUC estimates, would provide £17 billion. That would cover the cost of introducing social care and independent living services. That requires political will and political courage, so there is the potential to go forward and form a cross-party alliance to secure a future for social care and support for unpaid carers.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) on securing this debate. After the session yesterday where we met the different caring organisations, I would say that, if anyone wants any motivation, all they have to do is sit down with a few of those carers to realise how urgent and how desperate the situation is at the moment—and what willingness there is across this House to secure quite radical transformative change on the issue.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). I echo what he said about how moving and inspiring it was to speak with unpaid carers yesterday in Parliament. I agree that even the briefest of conversations with an unpaid carer leaves us in no doubt about the urgency of the situation and the importance of ensuring better support for them.
I will keep my comments brief, as other hon. Members have already outlined the importance of this debate far more eloquently than I could, but there are two points I would like to impress upon the House. The first is that unpaid carers, as well as caring for their loved ones, make an incredible contribution to society, one that I think we need to value more. The second is the need for us to bring about a situation where they are given better financial and practical support.
Others have already mentioned the urgency of the situation, not least due to the rising cost of living and the financial pressures that that is imposing on many families and unpaid carers. In my own constituency, sadly, 72% will be off the mains gas network and reliant on heating oil, for example, to keep their homes warm. For those with caring responsibilities, it is essential that they are able to heat their homes, not just through the harshest of winter months, but through the shoulder months. They already have to pay a great deal more than some of their neighbours who do not have the same requirements and caring responsibilities.
Hannah Bardell
My hon. Friend spoke about the importance of local organisations. Will he join me in congratulating Carers of West Lothian, which celebrated its 30th anniversary this year? The group does incredible work in my constituency and truly is the backbone of our community.
Ben Lake
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention and I congratulate the group in question. In Ceredigion I know there are many charitable organisations that do great work supporting unpaid carers, as indeed do local authorities. My own county council does its very best to ensure that the unpaid carers it is aware of are given advice, support where possible, and resources so that they know of the various types of practical and financial support available to them.
Such initiatives are important; in a place such as Ceredigion it is estimated that more than 7,000 people are unpaid carers, equivalent to 10.5% of the population, and they make an incredible contribution. Other hon. Members have mentioned the value in financial terms of the contribution that unpaid carers make to the health and social care system. In Ceredigion alone, our unpaid carers make a contribution worth some £700 million a year. That is an incredible contribution and, to be frank, it ensures that local health and social systems do not collapse under the rising demands they face.
Nevertheless, as has been mentioned, some 73% of those who are caring or who have provided care in their lifetimes do not identify themselves as unpaid carers. That means it is difficult to understand truly how many are in need of support, whether financial support or respite and other practical measures. I very much support the calls of other hon. Members for measures that will force public authorities in particular to seek out and identify unpaid carers in the realms of both education and the NHS. If we do not know how many people living in our communities are unpaid carers, it is difficult to effectively plan for services such as respite and day centres. I know from speaking with unpaid carers in my constituency that those are vital lifelines, but lifelines that, sadly, are being cut back.
I will end my comments by dwelling a little bit on financial support for carers. We have heard about the ways in which the rising cost of living is having a serious impact on their finances and how many unpaid carers are deeply worried about their financial prospects. Just under half already say that they are cutting back on essentials. We also know that more and more unpaid carers are having to spend their own money and resources to procure essential items, such as incontinence pads and other equipment, for their loved ones. I think most hon. Members in this debate would agree that those types of supplies and equipment should be provided by the state and not something that carers should have to dip into their own savings and resources to buy.
I also want to point out the inadequacy of the carer’s allowance. One important thing we should bear in mind about the structure of that allowance is that the thresholds imposed mean that many people are not eligible for or entitled to the support, despite the fact that they give hours and hours of unpaid care every week. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington also outlined the inadequacy of the current level of the payment itself.
In a poll conducted by YouGov earlier this year, some 84% of those asked thought that unpaid carers should receive additional financial support. There is clearly widespread public support for increasing the support given to unpaid carers. When we consider the £162 billion contribution that unpaid carers make every year just across England and Wales—£700 million in Ceredigion alone—it is high time we looked again at carer’s allowance and the direct financial support that they are given. They give so much to society; it is now time for society and the state to pay them back.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
I hugely congratulate the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) on securing this really important debate and on the work she does with the APPG.
Here we are again in National Carers Week, and things have not improved tremendously since the last time we had this debate in Westminster. Carers UK wants this week to be about communities across the UK coming together to recognise the huge contribution that unpaid carers make to society. Politicians—that’s us—employers, that’s us as well; health and social care services; businesses; education providers and members of the public all have a role to play in raising awareness of caring and making sure carers are able to access the information and support they need.
Like many others here in the Chamber, I went to the parliamentary reception yesterday, where I met Karen, among others. Karen told me her story and how she gave up a high-flying job with a really good salary, right at the start of the pandemic, to take care of her mother. She did so willingly, but it was a full-on job—in fact, so full-on that she did not have time to apply for any kind of carer’s allowance. Three years on, she finds herself almost bankrupt and in danger of losing her home. I think that shames us all. I pay tribute to Karen and folk like her, who are taken for granted. They save the economy billions of pounds and they do not always come out of it well enough, even though they have done the very best they can.
I also pay tribute to two organisations in my constituency, Lanarkshire Carers, which works in Motherwell and Wishaw—it has just been recognised as an exemplary Carer Positive employer in Scotland, which is fantastic news—and North Lanarkshire Carers Together, which attends the regular meetings of the poverty action network that I have set up locally. Both organisations do such immense and positive work to signpost carers, helping them to get money and respite, ensuring that they are included, providing short breaks—afternoon caring time—and even just allowing paid and unpaid carers to talk to others, which is a huge help.
Wendy Chamberlain
I, too, visited Lanarkshire Carers over the recess, in neighbouring Hamilton, and I heard about the exemplary award and the innovative ways in which they have approached things since the pandemic to ensure that they reach out to carers. They are a best-in-class organisation, and the hon. Lady is very lucky to have them.
Marion Fellows
Oh, I know. I thank the hon. Member for her intervention and for the Carer’s Leave Act 2023, which she piloted through Parliament—it will make a difference. I ask the Minister to please listen and give carers some money for the five days off to which they will now be entitled.
Last month, the chief executive officer of Carers Trust told the Work and Pensions Committee that, as Members have noted:
“Carer’s allowance is devolved in Scotland, so there has been a big focus on increasing the adequacy of the benefits. Part of that has been around focusing support on 16, 17 and 18 year olds who are unpaid carers. There have been financial payments, payments of £300”—
quite a lot of money for a young person—
“to allow them to access broader life opportunities, given so much is not open to them.”
They also get a Young Scot card, which gives them free transport, discounts and other things. It also looks as if the Scottish Government will remove the 21-hour rule for study, and I hope that the UK Government do not intervene against that, because it is important. A young carer needs the opportunity to enhance their education and better equip themselves for further work.
In Scotland, we really try to support and help carers. We know how much they contribute to our economy. It has been estimated that there are about 800,000 carers saving the economy £3.1 billion a year—that is an enormous amount of money. We also have to face the fact that most carers are women, and that leads to lower pensions. The gender pay gap already means that women do not get as good a pension as men, but the fact that more women than men take up caring responsibilities mean that they are being hammered twice.
The Scottish Government are very keen on stakeholder engagement. As with the national care strategy that they recently announced, nothing is done without talking to stakeholders. I am very proud that one of my former employees, Sophie Lawson, is working on a Scottish Government initiative on this topic—good luck to her. Sophie works for the Glasgow Disability Alliance, which has done a lot of good work with carers.
I have been the SNP’s Westminster disability spokes- person since 2020, but appallingly, it was only last year that it really dawned on me that there is a huge link between people with disabilities and carers, and how much we all owe to carers, who help the most undervalued groups in our society. Unpaid carers cover all parts of society, but they can often be marginalised. That is where local organisations are useful. I know that is happening all over the country.
One thing that I hope the Minister will recognise is that 29% of carers in the most deprived areas across the UK care for 35 hours a week. There is a real link between ill-health, poverty and the fact that so many people have to give up work to care for their loved ones. There is also real stigma, as has been mentioned. Many people who are cared for do not recognise that they are being cared for, and that can prevent their carers from accessing organisations and help from other people.
I am aware of the time that I have taken, so I will finish. I hope the Minister has listened very carefully to everyone in the Chamber, and will consider what is happening in Scotland. This is an important issue, and it needs to be addressed, especially now, during this cost of living crisis.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
I am very pleased to speak in the debate and congratulate the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) on securing it. I always feel privileged to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, but this issue is close to my heart. Across the country, millions of us are doing what any daughter or son, husband, wife or partner, mum or dad would do when someone they love is sick, frail, elderly or disabled: look after them the very best we can.
It can be hugely rewarding to care for the person who means so much to you and who has helped you so many times. But it can also be a terrible struggle: trying to hold down your job, or travelling up and down the country, while battling to get your mum or dad out of hospital; spending hours arranging seemingly endless NHS and care appointments on the phone, wondering why on earth no one else seems to be talking to each other; searching for the right home care, or a care home that you can actually trust; and figuring out what help, if any, you or the person you are caring for are entitled to, financial or otherwise. The pressure, stress and, often, guilt, can wreak havoc with your own physical and mental health. The financial costs can be ruinous, too, especially if you just cannot make it all work and have to quit your job. Most of the time, you just feel ignored or invisible—not just to all the different services that you are battling with, but in your workplace and in wider society.
Hon. Members have spoken powerfully about their and their constituents’ experiences, about what needs to change to improve the lives and life chances of Britain’s amazing army of unpaid carers, and about the need to better recognise and improve support for the physical and mental health of family carers who are battling to see a GP, or anyone else. They are not even getting the statutory assessment to which they are entitled under the Care Act 2014, not least because of the cuts to local government services. There is a real need for breaks—not just physical breaks from caring, but something for carers to look forward to and to help them keep going. Many carers face poverty: a quarter have to cut back on the essentials of life and people sell everything they have just to try to keep the show on the road.
The real implications of providing care when young include the sacrifices you make of your hopes and dreams, and the shame that you feel, which often never leaves you. On finding out who is a carer in the first place, let us be honest: most people do not think that they are a carer—they are just trying to be a good son or daughter, husband or wife—but without that recognition, they will never get any help.
Those issues are not new, but they are growing. After 13 years of failure on social care reform, on top of covid and the cost of living crisis, the pressures on families are becoming unbearable. However, the argument that I will make is not the moral case for transforming support for unpaid family carers, although that is a case in which I firmly believe; it is the economic case, particularly the need for us to start to see a decent social care system as part of our country’s economic infrastructure, not just as a vital public service.
We live in the century of ageing and, as we all live for longer, more and more of us are going to have to work and care for longer. Almost 5 million people are already juggling work with caring for an older, sick or disabled relative. That is one in seven of all workers and it is only going to increase. The burden often falls on women, especially those in their 50s and 60s. The latest census shows that one in five of all women aged 55 to 60 are caring for an older or disabled loved one. That is a staggering figure that has received far too little attention to date.
The fact that our care system is stretched to the absolute limit means that 2.5 million unpaid carers have had to give up work or reduce their hours because they cannot get the help they need. Let us look at the increase in economic inactivity in over-50s since the covid pandemic, which there has been a lot of focus on. We know that the primary reason for this increase is poor physical and mental health and the increasing waiting lists in the NHS, which are now at a staggering 7 million. The second biggest reason, which no one has mentioned so far, is caring responsibilities.
Being forced out of the workplace is not good for families, especially in a cost of living crisis. It is not good for women and women’s equality, because women in their 50s and 60s are in the prime of their lives, with all the experience and knowledge they have. It is not good for businesses, which need to draw on the talents of everyone in our country in order to succeed, and it is not good for our economy, especially when the UK is stuck in a doom loop of low growth, poor productivity and ever higher taxes. If we want to help the over-50s to stay in work or get back into work, I suggest that the Chancellor spends a little more time focusing on the broken care system and a little less complaining about people spending too much time on golf courses.
We know that decent public services require a growing economy to put the money in, but the truth is that a growing economy depends on decent public services too. In modern Britain, social care and, I would also argue, childcare are as much a part of our economic infrastructure as the roads and the railways, and they should be at the heart of our economic policy and strategy for growth.
That is why Labour has made improving care one of the four missions of our industrial strategy—we understand that it is central to the workforce and economic growth. We are calling for a 10-year programme of investment and reform. That must include a new deal for the paid care workforce. We are never going to help family carers unless we have enough properly paid staff and tackle the record vacancies and high turnover rates. We need to have a much more joined-up system of health and care, so that families do not have to battle their way around the system, and a big shift in focus towards prevention and early intervention, to help people stay living fit, well and healthy at home for as long as possible.
We also need proper support for unpaid family carers, so that they can better balance work and family life, including improvements in flexible working and care leave. Opposition Members will remember that Labour women in the ’70s and ’80s argued that childcare was vital for children, the workforce, the economy and women’s equality, and that is the case we are making on social care too.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure you will agree that sometimes politics seems very frantic, with things changing day by day, but sometimes I think it is all so unbelievably slow in understanding how the world has changed around us. My mum often says to me, “Why are you so surprised that there are so many of us olds? We’ve been born a long time.” That is true. We need to wake up to these changes and understand just how important a decent social care system is for families, the NHS, women’s equality and our wider economy too. The last Labour Government had a national carers strategy signed up to by senior Cabinet members at all levels, looking at all the things that impact on family life. I urge the Government to commit to that strategy today.
The Minister for Social Care (Helen Whately)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) for securing the debate, for her powerful opening speech and for all she does as chair of the APPG on carers. This week is Carers Week—a chance to recognise and focus on carers—but as every carer knows, if you are a carer, every week is carers week. I pay tribute to carers and young carers across the country for what they do, caring for loved ones, whether it is their mum or dad, brother or sister, a neighbour or their child, who will often be grown up, day in, day out, all year round.
Over 4 million people in England are unpaid carers. For some, caring may be a few hours a week helping a relative or neighbour with things they cannot do themselves or providing companionship. For others—in fact, nearly one in three, according to the latest census—caring means over 50 hours each week looking after someone. It is not just a full-time job, albeit unpaid, but how they are spending their lives.
My hon. Friend drew on her expertise, as a former Care Minister, and her personal experience. She spoke about how few families are untouched by caring responsibilities, about the sacrifices that carers make and how they are driven by love, but also the problem of exhaustion and burn-out for carers. She talked about the importance of identifying carers, especially young carers. She spoke powerfully about children with experience of dialling 999 because of a parent needing an ambulance but not telling anyone because of the stigma, particularly due to a parent’s mental health needs.
My hon. Friend asked whether we could build on some of the things we did for carers in the pandemic. I know, as I was Care Minister at the time, how incredibly hard the pandemic was for many carers, how isolated many felt and how many felt they did not have the support they needed. I know how difficult it was to work out how we could support carers during the pandemic, but we managed to do some things, such as identifying carers we prioritise for the covid vaccine. I will take away her request to look at how we can build on the things we did in the pandemic.
I know that the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) is a committed campaigner for social care and carers; we often speak in the same debates. She spoke about some of the financial difficulties for carers, the importance of cross-Government commitment to carers, and carers needing breaks and time off from caring.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) spoke about her personal experience of caring for her father. She talked about the loneliness and isolation but how cricket helped, which made many of us smile. She talked about young carers, how the sacrifices they make are often not appreciated and the long-term effects of being a young carer.
I pay tribute to hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for her very important work in steering the Carer’s Leave Bill through Parliament. She spoke about things that employers can do more broadly to support carers and the opportunity of being a Carer Positive employer. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said that he chairs a local carers group, and I give him credit for that, whether or not it is a Labour group. That is a very important thing to do, bringing carers together to support one another and listening to what help they need. He spoke about the difficulty for carers in getting assessments. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) spoke about the cost of living and the cost of heating homes for carers, particularly in his constituency, where many carers are off grid and use heating oil.
We also heard briefly from the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell). That level of Back-Bench interest in this topic on a quiet Thursday in Parliament shows how strongly people feel, rightly, about the need for support for carers in our constituencies. We also heard from those on the shadow Front Benches, the hon. Members for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) and for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows).
I know, from my own experience and from my family, that caring is something we do because it feels the right thing to do. We might not have a choice or not feel we have a choice, but nor can we imagine not doing it—not caring for the person we love. For many people, it is something that just happens to them: they become a carer without really realising it. Suddenly, they are spending hours caring—perhaps all their waking hours, and often in the night as well—without realising that they have become a carer, and without knowing that they might need support or, indeed, that they could get it. That is why recognising carers and helping them recognise themselves is important in its own right. There is a good reason why recognising and supporting carers in the community is the theme of this year’s Carers Week.
Local authorities, the NHS, schools, universities, all public services, and indeed companies need to continue to improve how unpaid carers are identified, recognised and supported in our communities. This Carers Week, I have had meetings with more than 30 unpaid carers, young adult carers and representatives from unpaid carers’ organisations, and both as Care Minister and in my life outside politics, I meet carers all the time—remarkable carers who have shared their stories with me. Those are so often stories of how hard it is to be a carer, although it is also really good to hear some positive stories. For instance, some employers are really supportive of carers and their caring responsibilities. However, sadly, that is not always the case; in fact, just on Tuesday, one carer told me that she is thinking about giving up her job due to a lack of support. Many hon. Members have spoken about that issue today.
On the important issue of juggling employment and caring, I want to highlight the Carer’s Leave Act 2023, which received Royal Assent on 24 May. Eligible unpaid carers will soon be able to take a week’s flexible unpaid leave each year. I am so pleased to see that Bill pass into law to help carers who are juggling work and caring.
This week, I also spoke to another carer about the challenges they are facing in getting the professional care and support they need. That is one reason why the work we are doing on reforming the adult social care workforce is really important. I say to carers, “Please keep on speaking up. Keep on telling your stories, for other carers and to make sure people know what it is to be a carer. None of you are alone.”
In April, we published our reform plan, “Next steps to put People at the Heart of Care”. The enormous contribution of unpaid carers is reflected in that plan, and in writing it, we were thinking about carers as well as those they care for. This financial year, £327 million of the better care fund has been earmarked to provide short breaks and respite services for carers, as well as additional advice and support. We are finalising plans for how we will deliver the additional sum of up to £25 million that we committed to carers in the White Paper, and I will be sharing those plans shortly. I know it is taking time, but I do really want to get it right.
The Health and Care Act 2022 includes provisions for the Care Quality Commission to assess the performance of local authority delivery of adult social care duties. That duty has gone live as of 1 April with our new assurance framework, which will provide a clear assessment of how local authorities are meeting their statutory duties, including those relating to carers, such as whether local authorities are undertaking their assessment of carers’ need for support and then meeting the needs that are identified. That will address one of the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport, along with other Members: how we make sure carers get the assessments to which they have a statutory right, as well as the support they are identified as needing.
We are working with NHS England to streamline the ways in which unpaid carers are recorded in GPs’ health records, and we have written to all GPs in England to communicate improvements to how that is carried out. Crucially, that identification of individuals with caring obligations extends to young carers. Questions designed to identify children and students caring for family members have been added to the school census, and that important data has been published today. We are also making progress on our plans to transform social care data, better joining up the care to people, including support to unpaid carers as well as those they care for.
Meanwhile, we are taking steps to design a new survey to capture the wide range of experiences and needs of unpaid carers across England, and to commission a valuation of the support provided to unpaid carers through the better care fund, including carer breaks and respite. It might seem obvious, but different carers want different things, so it is right that we take steps to understand and build the evidence base of what works and what matters when supporting carers.
Helen Whately
I am really sorry, but I have but a minute left—Madam Deputy Speaker has confirmed that. However, to address the points that the hon. Lady made in her speech, I assure her that not a penny has been taken away from funding for adult social care; in fact, more money is going into adult social care, thanks to the record funding of up to £7.5 billion over two years that we announced in the autumn statement. A crucial part of our adult social care workforce reforms is our reform of the professional care workforce: developing social care as a career for the professional workforce, developing the career pathway and investing in qualifications for that workforce. That is very important to unpaid carers, because the top issue often raised with me by the unpaid carers I talk to is the difficulty of accessing professional care.
To close, I want to say as Minister for Social Care that I care, and I will continue to champion carers’ needs as part of the work I do across Government. I am delighted to announce that I will be convening a roundtable of Ministers to work together across our Departments to identify, recognise and support unpaid carers. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have made contributions on this important topic today, as well as Carers UK for its work this Carers Week and its year-round advocating for carers, and the other campaign groups involved in this week, including Age UK, the MND Association, Rethink Mental Illness, the Lewy Body Society and Oxfam. Finally, I say thank you to all carers.
Dame Caroline Dinenage
I reiterate my thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us to have this debate today. I thank both the Minister and the Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), for showing that they both understand and care about this issue. I also thank all the Members who have taken part: the hon. Members for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) and for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken).
Many Members shared their own personal experiences; I kicked off by talking about mine, when my mum cared for my grandmother who lived with dementia. I think it is only now that I am probably at a similar age to my mum in that caring role that I fully understand what she was going through and the toll that it would have taken on her own wellbeing. I put on record today—because I have never had the opportunity to do so—my thanks to her, and to the 7,000 carers in my constituency of Gosport and the millions across the UK. They deserve our thanks.
In many cases, what those carers do is so invisible. I know that they do not do it for thanks—they do it because they love the people who they care for—but that does not mean that we should take it for granted. It means that we need to recognise them and value them, and to put our money where our mouth is when we do that. It means that we need to provide them with support, funding and respite, and with everything they need to continue doing their role, because it is thankless and hard. I know that they probably would not have it any other way, but that does not mean that it should be done for free. The final thing I will say to the Minister today is that we need a national carers strategy to bring together all that good work, and to demonstrate to carers that we do care.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I know that the young people from Balby Central Primary Academy will have enjoyed the contributions made about carers, particularly young carers.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered National Carers Week and respite for carers.
Council of Europe
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the work of the Council of Europe.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, since you are yourself a former member of the UK delegation to the Council of Europe.
When I look back at my time as leader of the UK delegation to the Council of Europe, my hope is that the future will judge us on the basis of more than that the approach we have adopted was just a pleasant idea, and then we can all slip back into anonymity.
At the Reykjavík summit of the Council of Europe, the final declaration said:
“We will work together to protect and promote the three fundamental, interdependent, and inalienable principles of democracy, rule of law and human rights, as enshrined in the Statute of the Council of Europe and in the European Convention on Human Rights.”
It spoke of how fundamental the values and aims of the Council of Europe are to us as a country, and how they influence every level of government. The UK willingly signed up to that declaration. It is partly to make that very point that after every plenary session of the Council in Strasbourg I submit a list of written questions on each of the debates we have had, to make sure that they are discussed and known to Government Departments, and that those Departments have the chance to respond. As the Prime Minister said in his speech at the Reykjavik summit,
“the UK may have left the EU, but we have not left Europe. We remain a proud European nation and we must work together to defend the values we all hold so dear. The Council of Europe, with its huge reach, has such a vital role to play.”
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I am hugely encouraged to hear the hon. Gentleman’s rhetoric and about the work he has done. The only country to have left the Council of Europe is Russia. There is talk on the Government Benches about leaving the Council of Europe and indeed the European convention on human rights. Does he agree that Russia is not company that the UK should look to keep?
John Howell
I agree with the hon. Lady, and if she waits a little, she will hear some other excellent news from that summit.
Talking of the spirit of freedom in Europe, the PM went on to say:
“The Council of Europe has nurtured that spirit for three quarters of a century.”
We are proud to offer it our support, and we are proud that the UK has signed that declaration. I thank all who have served and all who do serve as members of the UK delegation to the Council of Europe. As one Cabinet member put it, we do a lot of the work without fanfare and with no praise, to the extent that in this country few have heard of the Council of Europe, and those who have mostly think it is part of the EU. How sad that for much of the UK, Europe has come to mean nothing more than the EU, and not the wider Europe of 46 countries.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that although we have left the confines of the EU, we did not leave Europe? We remain a European country, and the Council of Europe gives the United Kingdom the opportunity to maintain our relationship with not only EU member states, but the whole of Europe, and to lead discussions and decision making on common issues regarding democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
John Howell
I thoroughly agree with that, and as my hon. Friend knows I support that in everything I do in the Council of Europe. I try to interest the Lobby journalists here in the Council of Europe, but I probably fail for the very reason that they see “Europe” in the title. I make a plea to any listening now: the Council of Europe is not part of the EU. It looks after human rights, the rule of law and democracy across the wider Europe, and it should be paid attention to.
Hannah Bardell
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman giving me his last intervention. Does he agree that the process of Brexit, the run-up to that and the narrow-minded and negative narrative that has pervaded the UK press have had a profound impact on our societies in how we talk about and view Europe? I agree with much of what he is saying, but I am sure he will recognise that some of that has come from those on his Benches. We need to work together to promote the work of the Council of Europe and to make sure that everyone, from the schoolchildren in our constituencies to civic leaders across the UK, understands the power and importance of its work.
John Howell
I agree with that, and I will come on to say a little more on that in a moment.
Many of the current delegation have not been members for long, but while we are there, we will play our full part in working with the Council of Europe to take forward its aims and values and to make sure they are part of the system we all work in. We need to be wary in particular of the activities of the far right, is out to infiltrate our political groups.
The Council of Europe has just completed a summit, only the fourth it has held in its history. Some members of my political party were sceptical about it; I was not. For an organisation that does not put its head above the parapet often enough, it was a great success and it has shown what the Council of Europe is about. It was attended by our Prime Minister, and the declaration was signed by the UK. The declaration commits the UK to upholding the activities of the European Court of Human Rights and the European convention on human rights. It states:
“We reaffirm our deep and abiding commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) as the ultimate guarantors of human rights across our continent, alongside our domestic democratic and judicial systems. We reaffirm our primary obligation under the Convention to secure to everyone within our jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, as well as our unconditional obligation to abide by the final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in any case to which we are Parties.”
It goes on to state:
“Our European democracies are not established once and for all. We need to strive to uphold them each and every day, continuously, in all parts of our continent. The Council of Europe remains the guiding light that assists us in fostering greater unity among us for the purpose of safeguarding and realising these ideals and principles which are our common heritage. We reaffirm our commitment to developing mutual understanding among the peoples of Europe and reciprocal appreciation of our cultural diversity and heritage.”
As Lord Kirkhope said in the other place, let us ensure that international agreements such as this are honoured.
When the UK last held the presidency of the Council of Europe back in David Cameron’s time as Prime Minister, we initiated what has come to be called the Brighton declaration, which was a reform of the system of how the Court operated. The Brighton declaration wrote the principal of subsidiarity and the importance of domestic courts into the convention. If only people had read that before the recent fuss, it would have made life easier and simpler.
Of the things that the Council of Europe does that I most value, the two most prominent are election observation and monitoring. The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe does election observation, but that does not make what the Council of Europe does any less important. I pay tribute to colleagues who put themselves into difficult situations to ensure that elections are free and fair. It is a two-stage approach. The first question is, “Is the environment in which the election takes place free and fair?” In the case of Turkey, I would argue that it was not. The fact that many of the President’s rivals had been arrested suggests that. The second element is, “Is the process used for people to vote free and fair?” In one case, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, we found that those elected to open the polling booth turned up with a hold-all full of pre-filled polling cards in favour of the pro-Iranian candidate. They were promptly arrested.
I praise the role of rapporteurs, whose presence in pre-election missions is critical. A good rapporteur who knows the territory well and can get into the detail is a necessary requisite for that. That is not always the case with all rapporteurs. Many have a thin and superficial knowledge of the country they are reporting on.
One of the most potentially useful things I have done as a rapporteur for Turkey is to visit the human rights prisoner, Osman Kavala. He was—I should say is—a prominent businessman and philanthropist. He also has a link to this country, where he was on the faculty of the University of Manchester. When I visited him in a Turkish high-security prison, where he has been imprisoned for more than five years in pre-trial detention, I saw a man who showed no resentment for how he had been treated. I hope that now the elections are over, President Erdoğan will pardon Kavala and release him. He is of course not the only human rights prisoner in Turkey, but he is the epitome of all the others.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I thank my very good friend for allowing me to intervene. In the case of Turkey, a country that he and I care about, what influence and power do we have when he sees something that is palpably wrong, apart from publicising it? Do we have any more power in the Council of Europe than that?
John Howell
We have a tremendous amount more power, and that power lies in the personality of the rapporteur and what they want to do. They can do that by talking diplomatically to people there, rather than banging the table and demanding that something be done.
There was an idea at the summit to appoint a new commissioner for democracy. I confess that I was interested in the position for myself, but unfortunately the idea was placed on the back burner and not taken forward, which I think is a shame. Right across Europe, we see a backsliding on democracy that is very worrying. The appointment of a commissioner for democracy would have helped to prevent that.
What impact does the Council have on our domestic legislative agenda? Let me give two short examples—the Istanbul convention and the Lanzarote convention. The Istanbul convention sets out the protections that are required for women in cases of violence and domestic abuse. It is a landmark convention, and I am pleased that, after lobbying by me, we have signed it—in part, but being able to sign it in part is important. This so distinguishes the way the Council of Europe works from the way that the EU works. It is characteristic of the convention system used by the Council that conventions are put together right across the nations of Europe, and it is the choice of every country to determine which bits should apply in their own country.
The Lanzarote convention is a comprehensive treaty that does a great deal to put in place the international co-operation required to protect children’s rights. I would add a third example, which is the Venice Commission’s work to establish the principles under which ombudsmen work and are appointed. The all-party parliamentary group on alternative dispute resolution looked at that yesterday, with a representative from the United Nations also saying that it has adopted the Venice Commission’s principles.
What good does the Council of Europe do? Critics say that it is nothing but a talking shop. Well, perhaps, but I would strongly argue that it does much more than that through the work of the Assembly, the Committee of Ministers, the Court, the anti-corruption activities of the Group of States against Corruption, the anti-human trafficking work undertaken by the group of experts on action against trafficking in human beings, and the work of the Venice Commission in strengthening democratic institutions. All of these deliver tangible results across member states.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Member for his leadership of the delegation, and for the huge amount of work he puts into the Council of Europe. He leads a commission that has ended up with the Council agreeing to the principal of ecocide being recorded in international and national law. Would he care to reflect on how we can encourage national Parliaments to take more seriously agreed declarations that come from that source, which will help us all to have a stronger environmental protection law?
John Howell
I agree with the right hon. Member. I am trying very hard to persuade this Government to accept that there is such a thing as ecocide, and that it should be included in descriptions of how the world operates. I am having difficulty with that, but I shall continue to try. I think it is a very good point.
I am a convinced multilateralist, and although multilateralism is under attack everywhere at the moment, I simply do not believe that any country can make a go of everything by itself. That means having somewhere where ideas can be talked about and discussion can take place, and that is what the Council of Europe does.
What has this delegation achieved? It is down to this delegation that we expelled Russia from among the Council’s members—the first international organisation to do so. It is down to this delegation that we lobbied the Turkish delegation to persuade President Erdoğan to admit Sweden and Finland to NATO, a move that I must admit has worked better in the case of Finland than that of Sweden. It is down to this delegation that the UK Government and the Opposition are supporting the membership of Kosovo. These may all be examples of soft diplomatic power, but there is nothing wrong with that.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all members of the delegation for the work they do. I would also like to thank Sandy Moss, our excellent permanent representative in Strasbourg, whose work on the summit was masterly. I would like to thank our equally masterful secretary, Nick Wright, and his team, without whom we would be in deep trouble and with whom I very much enjoy working.
If there is one message from this it is: let us all follow the vision set out for the Council at the summit, and let us make that summit a reality.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
It is a real pleasure to take part in this debate. As I said in my intervention, I commend the work of the delegation. I would like to endorse everything the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) has said about the work of the support team—Nick Wright and his staff—who are fantastic in ensuring that things happen, and that the delegation gets there and takes part in the debates.
Being relatively newly appointed to the Council of Europe—I only came on to the delegation since the last general election—I have to say that most people have no idea what the Council of Europe does. Whenever I mention to people locally that I am going to an event at the Council of Europe, they say, “I thought we’d left all that behind”, and I have to explain that it is actually something different from the EU. It is often just simply not understood. The stuff that comes out of it is often not very much debated here either, so it is good that we have a main Chamber debate on this today. The examples the hon. Member gave about the Venice Commission, the Istanbul convention and other conventions are very important, and I think we need a system in which the Government respond, in the way they are required to respond very publicly to Select Committee reports, to give the same emphasis to issues that come from the Council of Europe, which I think would make it more important.
I want to make a few quick points, Madam Deputy Speaker, but could I first crave your indulgence for one moment? Tomorrow is 9 June, which means that it is 40 years since I was first elected to this House. I just want to put on record my thanks to the long-suffering and very wonderful people of Islington North for electing me all those years ago and for continuing to elect me to Parliament. My dedication is to them, and to serving them to the best of my ability in dealing with the housing, immigration, planning, environmental and other issues that I deal with. I just want to use this opportunity to put that on record and to thank all of them.
The declaration that came out of the Reykjavik summit is obviously extremely important, and it is very much dominated by the situation in Ukraine. Russia leaving the Council of Europe was a huge event, for obvious reasons. I think it was the first time any state has left the Council of Europe. I fully understand why—I fully understand what happened, and I absolutely and totally join everyone else in condemning the invasion of Ukraine by Russia—but we should also be aware that Russia leaving the Council has denied all Russians any access to the European convention on human rights and the relative protections they could try to obtain from it. I also fully acknowledge that there have been huge difficulties in Russians getting justice following decisions made at the European Court of Human Rights or through the convention, but we just have to be aware that it is a Europe-wide convention on human rights, and we want everybody to abide by it and to abide by the decisions of the Court.
All the Council of Europe sessions over the past two years have been very much dominated by Ukraine, and that is absolutely understandable. As I have said—and I repeat it—I totally condemn the Russian invasion and occupation of part of Ukraine. I would hope that at some point in the future the Council of Europe can become an agent that helps to bring that war to an end, because at some point there will have to be negotiations. At some point, there will have to be a peace process and at some point—I hope very soon—those who have been wrongly taken to Russia will be returned and there will be a process of dealing with the victims of war, wherever they are from and whatever they have suffered as a result of it. I believe that the Council of Europe has a role in that and a role in bringing people together, and I hope we can achieve that.
One issue the hon. Member for Henley brought up, and I would like to raise it as well, is the European convention on human rights and the role of the European Court of Human Rights. Page 4 of the declaration states:
“We reaffirm our deep and abiding commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights…as the ultimate guarantors of human rights across our continent, alongside our domestic democratic and judicial systems.”
It was obviously extremely difficult back in the 1940s to draft the European convention on human rights and to establish the Court, because we were dealing with fundamentally different legal systems across all the member states, with very different perceptions of the separation of political and judicial powers. So it is a wonderful achievement that the European Court of Human Rights exists at all.
From its inception, the Court was part of our domestic law, and from the Human Rights Act 1998 its caselaw was absolutely part of our law. Therefore, when an injunction was granted to prevent an individual being removed to Rwanda by the UK Government, I was surprised that so many Members of this House and the Government reacted with horror and anger at the alleged interference of the European Court of Human Rights in domestic law. It is not interference; it is absolutely part of our domestic law. We need to think a bit more deeply about the passage through this House of the migration Bill, which itself does not meet the human rights declaration required of all legislation anyway. If we are in breach of a convention that this country was a party to in 1949 and has been a member of all that time, and we appoint judges to the European Court of Human Rights, we should have more respect for it and understand what it is saying and trying to do.
Hannah Bardell
The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful and important point. Does he agree that it is cynical and desperate of this Government to use their appalling Rwanda policy and a very reasonable judgment by the Court, to which we send judges and have signed up, in order to undermine the authority of that very Court?
Jeremy Corbyn
I could not agree more. Britain was an early signatory and, indeed, provided many of the people who wrote the declaration and established the Court in the first place.
I also accept that there are problems in the administration of the Court and difficulties in getting cases to it. There are thousands of people across Europe who have different issues that they believe should be dealt with by the Court. I remember doing an advice bureau one Friday evening some years ago, and I counted the number of people in my constituency alone who felt that their injustice deserved the attention of the European Court of Human Rights. I thought, “Well, if we multiply that by 650 in Britain and then multiply that by 23, we get an awful lot of people.” Obviously, it is not that simple. People cannot just go there; they must first go through all their national legal processes. But there is still a substantial backlog and we have had useful meetings with the administration and the chief of the Court to try to understand the process they adopt, the analysis they make of all cases and how they are dealt with.
The Court’s judges are, after all, elected by the members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and we vote on them. The only criticism I would make is that the appointments committee spends a lot of time interviewing the applicants and forms a view on them and issues a declaration, while the rest of us get often substantial biographical details of the individual but it is very hard to understand from that what their legal approach and attitudes actually are, so it can be difficult to decide who is an appropriate candidate. We could be slightly more open about that and perhaps spend a bit more time on the appointments, because it is pretty fundamental appointing a judge for nine years to the European Court of Human Rights, which can have an effect on the lives and liberties of citizens all across Europe. Criticisms of the Court and of any legal decision are normal—we make them all the time—but we must accept that we and our legal system are very much part of that process.
I say that because there are voices, mainly in the Conservative party, that would like us to leave the European convention on human rights entirely and keep calling it interference with domestic law. I want to put it on the record that I strongly think we should remain in the European convention on human rights and understand and respect the law that goes with it.
The fact that the injunction granted was on an immigration issue also demonstrates the importance of immigration issues to the Council of Europe. I am a member of the migration Committee, and we have raised a lot of issues about pushbacks against refugees trying to enter particular countries—pushbacks by Greece, by Turkey and, indeed, by this country in the English channel. It is an uncomfortable truth that there are 70 million people around the world who are refugees seeking a place of safety. Some of them are coming into Europe and some of them are in Europe, and the media and cultural approach towards refugees is appalling in many cases—it is quite shocking.
I have been to Calais and talked to people there. They are desperate and poor and confused, and they are victims: victims of war, of human rights abuses and of environmental disaster. They are seeking a place of safety. One day they will be our neighbours, our doctors and our teachers, and we need a better and different approach to adopting and treating refugees in our society. If it is an uncomfortable wake-up call from the Council of Europe, then so be it; I think that is a good thing.
I am very happy to serve as part of the UK delegation on the Council of Europe, and all Parliaments have politically diverse delegations in order to bring up the many issues that need to be raised there. I am pleased that we are having a debate on this today, but one message that could come out of it is that we want the Government to be more responsive to issues that come of out of the Council of Europe, and that the House should automatically have a main Chamber debate at least once a year to go through the main issues arising from the Council of Europe, as we are doing today. If we want to live in a continent of peace, with protection of the environment and of human rights, this is an opportunity and a place where all those countries can come together at parliamentary level to try to achieve those kinds of changes.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
I congratulate our delegation group leader, my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), on securing today’s debate on the work of the Council of Europe. I am delighted to be a very active member of the UK delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and I have been to Strasbourg and Paris multiple times, including just after Easter, to support our work.
It is important to consider the origins of the Council of Europe. The context of today reminds me how incredibly important they were. It was founded after world war two, in 1949, to ensure that such a tragedy would never happen again. Today, as we have war right on the border of Europe, there has never been such an important time for us to have a place for speech and dialogue with our neighbours. The United Kingdom has always been at the heart of the conception of the Council of Europe, right from Sir Winston Churchill’s initiation to the signing of the treaty here in London.
So I strongly believe that although the UK is no longer part of the European Union, we remain an important part of the work of the Council of Europe and, of course, Europe as a geographical region. Member states in the Council of Europe have committed to upholding our three core pillars of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. It is very clear that Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine violated these values, and I welcome the fact that Russia was excluded from it in March last year. It had seriously violated article 3 of the Council of Europe statute that all member states must accept the principles of the rule of law and the enjoyment of all persons within their jurisdiction of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
This is why the work of the Council of Europe is so important. If there was ever a time for us to be protecting and upholding democracy, human rights and the rule of law, it is now. That is why I was so delighted that our Prime Minister decided to join the Council of Europe summit in Iceland last month. It was the fourth summit with Heads of State in the Council of Europe’s history, and it comes as no surprise that the focus of the summit this year was the Council of Europe mission in the light of new threats to democracy and human rights, and of course to support Ukraine. I note that our Prime Minister signed the Reykjavik declaration, which restated that we will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes. It states:
“Without accountability, there can be no lasting peace and we support the principles for a just and lasting peace as outlined in President Zelenskyy’s Peace Formula.”
Sally-Ann Hart
When our Prime Minister attended the Council of Europe summit in Iceland recently, he raised the massive issue of illegal migration, which is affecting the whole of Europe, not just the UK. Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK has a vital role to play in discussing illegal migration and encouraging European leaders to ensure that our Governments and institutions work together to stop illegal migration and the humanitarian disaster that it is causing?
Theo Clarke
I absolutely agree. I sit on the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, so if my hon. Friend waits a few more minutes, I will add some remarks to those of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn).
One tangible outcome of the summit was agreement on the register of damages caused by the Russian Federation’s aggression against Ukraine. For me, that was a really important outcome. The objective is to document the damage, loss and injury being caused by the Russian war of aggression. I would like to see that register of damage used as an impactful tool to hold Russia to account. I reiterate that the declaration condemned the aggression in the strongest possible terms and called on the Russian Federation to cease the aggression immediately and to withdraw its forces completely and unconditionally from the internationally recognised territory of Ukraine.
We have recently seen the devastating social and environmental consequences of these attacks. I am sure that in the last few days we have all seen in the papers the attack on the dam in Ukraine, although Russia has not accepted responsibility for the attack. The social and environmental damage now spans to three villages, which are completely submerged underwater with flooding up to their roofs. It has resulted in the evacuation of thousands of people. Just today, the death of at least three people has sadly been reported as a result of the flooding and the spill-over. For me, this is an example of where the humanitarian disaster could be growing. It is therefore even more important that we as an international community come together to support these humanitarian responses.
When we consider examples such as the collapse of the dam in Ukraine, one issue that comes to mind is that the Council of Europe has proposed the register of damages, but what happens if Russia does not claim to be the perpetrator or claim responsibility? What happens if there is insufficient evidence to prove that an attack came from Russia? To what extent can we use the register of damages to ensure compensation for those victims? I hope that the Council of Europe will further define that and work on this issue.
I have long been a passionate supporter of Ukraine. Just last year at No. 10, I met with colleagues and a number of Ukrainian MPs to hear from them at first hand about the devastation in their country. I am proud that on our migration Committee we sit with Oleksiy Goncharenko, a Ukrainian MP, and hear from him directly about the values of democracy.
I turn to the impacts on my constituency. We are all aware that Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine has resulted in nearly 8 million refugees being recorded across Europe. First of all, I wish to thank so many British families across the UK for welcoming such a huge number of Ukrainian refugees to their homes. I am delighted that in my constituency of Stafford we have had the highest number of refugees come to settle in our town. I note that Staffordshire-based companies—even JCB—have generously offered homes to 70 Ukrainian refugees across the county. I hope that other companies will follow suit and show their philanthropic support in that way.
The UK has provided tremendous support for Ukraine. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office recently granted £2 million in aid to the HALO Trust, and I have seen for myself the fantastic work that that charity does to ensure that, by being demined and decontaminated, Ukraine can be rebuilt.
On my most recent visit to Strasbourg, as part of the UK delegation for the April part-session, I was delighted to attend a debate looking at political strategies to prevent, prepare for and face the consequences of natural disasters. The debate was focused on the recent earthquake in Turkey and Syria. It was shocking to hear that more than 53,000 lives have been lost.
Even though that disaster was nearly 2,000 miles from London, I was so pleased to see that that was not an obstacle to support from our Government. The FCDO was quick to step up and respond by providing £3.6 million to UN partners in Turkey and £3.8 million to the White Helmets in Syria. One of my observations from that visit to Strasbourg was that, when the Council of Europe comes together and member states agree, there is so much that we can achieve. I was so pleased to hear that all member states are committed to helping Turkey and Syria in a time of need.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) mentioned the Council of Europe’s Committee on Migration, Refugees And Displaced Persons. I have been on that committee for the last three years—since my election—and we are always discussing the incredibly distressing stories that we hear of forcibly displaced people around the world. There are about 100 million currently in that situation. A number of those refugees are now in Europe and, of course, trying desperately to come to the UK. One of the things that we raised was the UK Government’s vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, which, together with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, has committed to rehoming 20,000 Syrian refugees fleeing conflict, violence and persecution. I am proud that in my constituency Stafford Borough Council and our county council have been working together to support Syrian refugees through teaching English, organising social activities and building friendships.
The committee has also touched on Afghanistan, the Taliban’s takeover of Kabul and the huge number of internally displaced people, such as women and children. I am pleased that the UK Government have schemes such as the Afghan relocations and assistance policy and the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. I am very proud that the UK is a compassionate and generous country. I have always been a huge supporter of our overseas aid budget. It is important that we are stepping up in times of need to support each other.
Lastly, I thank the Council of Europe because I am a recent mum—I have just returned from maternity leave—and the Council of Europe bent over backwards to accommodate me to bring my baby to the Council of Europe. I acknowledge its work and encourage other politicians who are new mums. We do not have to choose between a career as a politician and being a new mum—we can do both.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) on securing this important debate. I am a proud member of the delegation to the Council of Europe—it is a real honour—and thank him for all the work that he does. The delegation is cross-party and comes from both Houses, so we are working collaboratively—work that people outside the House do not see. When we work together, we achieve better goals and better outcomes for all of us.
The Council of Europe was established following the end of world war two to promote democracy and protect human rights and adherence to the rule of law in Europe. The UK was one of the 10 founding signatories to the Council of Europe statute, and the UK continues to play an active role in all parts of the organisation. The role of promoting democracy, human rights and the rule of law is so important because that is what we are here to do.
Since the Council of Europe’s creation, it has adopted more than 200 treaties and conventions, with the best known being the European convention on human rights. The ECHR is an international treaty between states of the Council of Europe. The United Kingdom was one of the states that drafted it and was one of the first states to ratify it in 1951. That is really important. Some MPs have raised concerns about the ECHR’s impact since the rights set out in the convention were incorporated into British law by the Human Rights Act 1998. Some interpretations of that by British courts and the European Court of Human Rights have led some MPs to call for the UK to leave the ECHR altogether. That would be completely the wrong thing to do. The most notable and recent of those cases was when the European Court of Human Rights blocked a deportation flight to Rwanda in 2022.
I am a proud Welsh Italian. I have had the opportunity to travel across Europe and across the world, and I am a languages graduate. The opportunity to be a part of the UK Parliament delegation and to speak Italian and French with our counterparts is a great honour. The work we do is reflected in committees, as it is in this House. I sit on the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media. Only last week, we held a session here in the UK Parliament on protecting human rights in sport, moderated by Lord George Foulkes of Cumnock, who is a great person and politician to have on that committee. It was heartbreaking to listen to Olivia Jasriel, the founder of the Olivia Jasriel Foundation for athletes, and Patrice Evra, the former Manchester United captain and French international, who, like Olivia, is an abuse survivor. They both campaign against abuse in sport and beyond.
These are domestic and worldwide issues around sport that impact directly on our lives, and the lives of our constituents, in particular young people. How governing bodies are held to account is very important to me. I have spoken in this House about misogyny and sexual abuse in sport. In the wake of what has happened in UK gymnastics, Yorkshire cricket and—I have spoken on this before—Welsh rugby union, the work of such committees is relevant to everybody and needs to be spoken about.
I take this opportunity to thank the hon. Member for Henley for his work on the Istanbul convention, which is very important to all of us across the House. The UK delegation has done some great work on that and I thank him for it, because tackling violence against women and girls is at the heart of everything I do. I am also pleased that the UK delegation supports Kosovo’s application for membership of the Council of Europe, so I thank him for his work on that, too.
I also thank some really key players: Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, who I have already mentioned; my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), who leads the Labour delegation; and Lord Griffiths of Burry Port. I think the hon. Member for Henley would agree that they are the glue that holds the delegation together, with their expertise and knowledge. I thank Nick Wright and his staff who support us; they are absolutely wonderful.
The whole delegation, including those here today speaking in this debate, are very proud to be part of the Council of Europe. I am very proud to be a part of it and we should talk about it more in this House. We may have left Europe, but the UK Parliament delegation is still extremely relevant and a big player in the Council of Europe.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) for securing the debate on this matter, on which I know he holds passionate views. I pay tribute to the outstanding work he does on behalf of our delegation and on behalf of the Council of Europe to promote human rights, as well as the election work he does in other parts of Europe. I pay huge tribute to his brilliant ability.
The Council of Europe is the European continent’s leading human rights organisation. Set up in 1949, it upholds human rights, democracy and the rule of law across continental Europe. I am proud that the United Kingdom was a founding member and was at the centre of proceedings at the treaty of London, which led to the formation of the Council of Europe. In fact, former Conservative Prime Minister Winston Churchill first suggested the idea of a Council of Europe in a radio broadcast in 1943, while war was still raging in Europe.
Our membership of the Council of Europe is vital. As the Prime Minister stated recently at the Reykjavik Council of Europe summit:
“the UK may have left the EU, but we have not left Europe.”
It is vital to remember that. Our membership of the Council of Europe is more vital than ever. It increases the effectiveness of the Council of Europe, I believe. Our influence as a cross-party delegation—from both Houses, as the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) said—allows us to protect the UK’s goals in Europe on improving human rights, democracy and respect for the rule of law.
The Council of Europe truly brings European states together. It is obviously much wider than the 27 states of the European Union. The Council of Europe is made up of 46 members, including Georgia, Turkey and, of course, Ukraine, to name but a few. I was pleased to see that Russia was very quickly and decisively expelled following its illegal invasion of Ukraine last year.
Earlier this year, I was proud to be selected to be a member of the UK’s delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. In January, I went on my first trip and attended a part-session of the Assembly. In that sitting, the issue of gender-based violence was at the heart of many of the debates. Unfortunately, those rights are still under threat in parts of Europe. The key principles of human rights, democracy and the rule of law have been tossed aside by Putin because of his illegal invasion of Ukraine.
I must say that I was struck by the courage and bravery of the Ukrainian parliamentarians I met in Strasbourg. So many had risked their lives to get to Strasbourg, and the testimony they gave to us privately, as well publicly in the Assembly, was heartbreaking. It goes to show how important institutions such as the Council of Europe are when the Ukrainians, who are in the grip of a vicious war, still see the importance of attending the Council, and its ability to unite Europe against oppression and violations of international law.
It was not lost on me that, in the light of Russia’s brutality, my first speech in the Palace of Europe, where the Parliamentary Assembly sits, was on preventing sexual violence in conflict. These are vile and cowardly crimes that are often overlooked, so I was glad we had a debate on those particular war crimes, which highlighted sickening records of widespread sexual abuse by Russian troops, with victims ranging in age from four to 82, according to investigators at the Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine. Ukraine’s Prosecutor General has also chronicled more than 88,000 alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity to date, including atrocities such as the 440 civilian bodies found in a mass grave in a liberated city. Unfortunately, those numbers are likely to increase substantially as more areas are liberated by Ukraine and inspectors gain access to the scenes of those crimes. The Council of Europe will play a massive part in ensuring those crimes are recognised and the perpetrators brought to justice.
During my speech at the Council of Europe, I outlined the UK’s strategy on sexual violence in conflict, which has been meticulously developed by experts, academics and non-governmental organisations to tackle all forms of conflict-related sexual violence. I was pleased to share the strategy with the rest of the Parliamentary Assembly. The current situation in Ukraine, as well as events in too many other countries, including Afghanistan and Ethiopia, make clear that this issue is very much alive.
In the debate, I called on all members to join me in standing up for the rights of women and girls around the world. Indeed, the Council of Europe has a history of working to prevent gender-based violence, with campaigns against gender-based violence going back to the 1990s. The Council of Europe’s flagship gender-based violence treaty is the Istanbul convention, also known as the Council of Europe convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence. The convention is the first legally binding instrument that creates a comprehensive legal framework and approach to combating violence against women. It is focused on preventing domestic abuse, protecting victims and prosecuting accused offenders.
Jeremy Corbyn
The hon. Member is quite right to refer to gender-based violence and violence against women. In that interesting debate, a lot was said about education, particularly of women in schools. The point I made, and I am sure she would endorse, is that it is also about educating young boys about their attitudes towards women, so that we do not bring up another generation of young men who feel it is okay to be abusive towards women.
Nickie Aiken
The right hon. Member will hear me say exactly that later in my speech: if we are ever to resolve violence against women and girls, it is about education of girls and boys. We cannot do one without the other.
The convention does so much for ensuring that we put preventing violence against women and girls at the heart of everything we do, and ensures that such violence is seen as a human rights issue and as discrimination. States that ratify the convention—I am proud that we as a nation are one of those signatories—must criminalise several offences, including psychological violence, stalking, physical violence, sexual violence including rape, forced marriage, female genital mutilation, forced abortion and forced sterilisation. The scope of that must not be understated. The convention states that sexual harassment must be subject to
“criminal or other legal sanction”.
It also includes an article targeting crimes committed in the name of so-called honour. I see no honour in any crime committed against a woman or girl.
During my trip to Strasbourg I spoke on the important role that men play in preventing violence against women and girls. I was interested to hear from delegates from all over Europe how they recognised the importance of education and changing attitudes on gender-based violence for boys and girls, as the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) just highlighted. I found that incredibly refreshing; it gave me renewed hope that organisations such as the Council of Europe can make a difference to improving the conditions for all women and girls across Europe, and will serve as an example to the rest of the world.
It would be remiss of me not to mention the European Court of Human Rights. In Strasbourg we met the UK judge on the Court, Judge Tim Eicke, in a worthwhile and fascinating meeting. Perhaps most interestingly, we discussed how few UK cases taken to the Court are upheld. In 2021, the Court dealt with only 215 applications regarding the UK. Of those, 205 were declared inadmissible. Only seven judgments were made, finding only one violation of the European convention on human rights. We should all be proud of that record. Meeting individuals such as our judge highlighted the work that the Council does to safeguard human rights for all member states.
I hope to go to Strasbourg again in a couple of weeks for the next session—slip permitting—where I hope to speak on more crucial issues such as public health and human rights. I look forward to continuing the UK’s leadership on human rights, democracy and the rule of law as a key member of the Council of Europe. I also look forward to meeting more of my European counterparts to discuss how we can continue to work together to improve people’s lives across Europe, sharing our own experiences and knowledge.
Let me conclude with a quote from one of the founding fathers of the Council of Europe, our own Winston Churchill:
“The dangers threatening us are great but great too is our strength”.
Wise words, and why we must remain a member of the Council of Europe.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
Let me give huge thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) for securing this debate. He is far too modest to tell us just how much enthusiasm, drive and determination he puts into his leadership of the UK delegation. He is a great support to so many of us in the Chamber.
My appointment to the Council of Europe was my first appointment by the Government. I remember in those pandemic times working from home, and taking a call from the Chief Whip, thinking, “What I have done wrong?”, only to be told that I would be asked to join the UK delegation. Like many Members here, I did not know a great deal about what the Council of Europe did, but since then I have been totally enthralled by it, as hon. Members will hear in a minute. In those first 18 months of the pandemic, any new Member from the 2019 intake probably struggled to work out quite what was going on, as nationalities from all over Europe were beamed into Chambers. It took quite some time to understand quite what was going on.
It was at that time that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), our previous delegation leader, took me under his wing. In a matter of just a few months he decided to put me forward for a rapporteurship, which, thankfully, I did not get, because the subject matter was something that I had absolutely no idea how to contribute to. That is the beauty of the Council of Europe: it broadens our horizons, opens our eyes and enables us to learn so much more about our fundamental laws, democracy and human rights.
My right hon. Friend explained, “Don’t worry. The d’Hondt system means that you will get the next rapporteurship that comes up.” I had no idea what the d’Hondt system was but, sure enough, my Christmas present in December 2020 was that I became the first of the 2019 intake to take on a rapporteurship. I took a great deal of pride in that, because it got a lot of prominence: track and trace applications, and the ethical, cultural and educational challenges. At the time, when covid was still spreading and we were using contact tracing apps to monitor the spread of the virus, the issue of how we use that data was giving huge rise to conversations not just in our country but all over Europe.
That position took me to Paris and to Strasbourg. Perhaps one of the most memorable moments of my time in Parliament was the ability to stand up in the Hemicycle in Strasbourg and present my report, which was unanimously adopted. As many Members have said this afternoon, we simply could not do our work without the incredible help from Nick Wright and his team. For me, Silvia Arzilli was a huge help in getting an enormous amount of work over the line. The officers we have in our UK delegation are fantastic people.
Why am I saying all this? As has been repeated this afternoon, the rule of law and human rights are fundamental principles in our democracy. They are the very principles that underpin not just our rights in this country but the Council of Europe. As many people have said, when we talk to constituents about work on the Council of Europe, they look at us slightly quizzically and say, “Didn’t we leave that?” I explain that we left the political union with the European Union, but we did not leave the work that we do within the Council of Europe.
It is quite true that there is more that unites us than divides us. The ability to work cross-party on the Council of Europe is one of the most attractive things about it. It offers the ability to talk for a time outside this Chamber with people in a more relaxed environment in Strasbourg, and fundamentally we work together. Many constituents do not see that side of our democracy.
We were one of the founding members of the Council of Europe in the 1940s. Our membership continues to demonstrate just how important we still are in the Council of Europe, and our international standing. Being on the UK delegation has opened my eyes, and I have enjoyed it a great deal. Listening to debates about human rights and refugees was somewhat of the inspiration, when the Ukraine war started, for my being the first MP to open my doors to a little family from Kyiv, who have been with me for 14 months. In my previous role, before I had any political ambitions whatsoever, I would perhaps not have considered that, but being thoroughly engrossed in the work of the Council of Europe and its role with human rights has changed my views and thoughts, as anybody who sits on the Council of Europe will understand, once they have worked with it for a few years.
As I finish, I pay one last tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Henley. He is far too modest to comment on his role in the removal of Russia from the Council of Europe but, in no small way, without his enthusiasm and passion to do what was right, we would not have ended up with that situation. Although that dreadful war continues in Europe—the worst for nearly 100 years —he needs to take a large amount of credit for leading that initiative and increasing our international standing by making sure that happened.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I have the privilege of representing the constituency of Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. Although many of my constituents will share concerns about the small boats, which were referred to briefly by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart), generations of people from all over the world have found refuge in my constituency. In particular, they include a large population of Jewish people, who came to the United Kingdom before the second world war, as the state terror against them was cranked up by the Nazis in Germany. A significant number came following the partition of India. Those people recognised that Europe in general, and the UK in particular, was a beacon of human rights and the rule of law—a place where their lives, businesses and families would be respected. Although I was not a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, that was the reason I took an interest in the Council of Europe during my time in local government, and I served as the Conversative delegation leader at the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe.
I want to share some reflections on that part of the Council of Europe, which is rarely referred to in this Chamber, except in the particular context of its work carrying out election supervision. It has significant impact on the way we manage migration and asylum. It is visible through my membership and that of other Members of the parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, which looks at the way the legislation we pass in this Chamber interacts with the European convention on human rights, of which we are a member. I will touch on some of the impacts that the different bodies of the Council of Europe have and consider some developments, such as the implications of the Brighton declaration, that show how that convention and the bodies that form part of the Council of Europe continue to be a work in progress, reflecting the changing world we face today.
I have heard in this Chamber, as reflected in much of the academic coverage of the subject, that there is a good deal of debate about the role in its foundation played by Winston Churchill, after whom buildings in Strasbourg and key Council of Europe premises are named. However, there is little doubt reflected back to me by my constituents who came to the UK in those circumstances that its founding politicians saw a desperate need for this body in the reconstruction of Europe after the second world war.
The aim was to ensure that there was a sufficient body of international jurisprudence to restrain potential abuses of state power, such as those that had been seen in a number of its member states in the run-up to the second world war. That would ensure that in the future no nation fell below that minimum standard, through a process where international law could be invoked. That took place against the background of the global work undertaken by the United Nations.
Following its foundation, the Council of Europe has developed a political sense. A number of Members have spoken from the perspective of their experience of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, but in due course the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe was created and the Council of Ministers was always there as part of the supervisory activity, whereby the Council itself was directly accountable to the Governments of the member states and they had a direct role in supervising decision making.
That has been enormously important, because in many of the debates on, for example, the Illegal Migration Bill and the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, both in this Chamber and in the public discourse, we have heard reference to foreign judges and courts and a lack of accountability. The Council of Europe, almost from its inception, has recognised that politics, not just the rule of law, is important in shaping its work. To this day, it remains extremely accountable to and shaped by the view of parliamentarians and the other active parties from the member states.
The role of the judges was referred to during the course of the debates on the Illegal Migration Bill, but it was not mentioned that those judges are elected by the Parliamentary Assembly. Members of this House choose who the judges are going to be, from a shortlist put forward by the Government of the member state. In fact, there is a much higher degree of accountability around the appointment of judges to the court than there is for judges in our own domestic courts here in the United Kingdom. That political relationship is incredibly important.
Then we have to consider the role of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe. The bit that we tend to make reference to, especially when we have debates about emerging situations in countries where there are concerns about whether free and fair elections are taking place, is the role of election monitoring. Our counterparts from local and regional government spend their time checking that those elections are being carried out in a free and fair manner, and also looking at issues such as how positive obligations on public bodies—for example, the duties on local authorities to house people or ensure they have access to education and healthcare—are playing out in practice.
On top of that, we have the Venice Commission, which is the body that looks at setting the international gold standard for the conducts of elections. There was much debate in this Chamber about whether it was appropriate to bring voter ID into the UK system, but it has been recommended by the Venice Commission for some time, as part of the gold standard for ensuring that elections are free and fair. It is standard practice across most member states of the Council of Europe.
I will turn briefly to some of the emerging challenges. A number of Members have made reference to the situation with Russia; I know my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) has done sterling work on that. I served on the Congress during a period when Russia was still an active member of the Council of Europe, which was a good explication of some of the challenges the Council faces. At that stage, Russia had already invaded and annexed Crimea, but was not the only member state of the Council of Europe that, arguably, had invaded and occupied territory of another member state. The challenges were very visible—politicians who were there to represent the interests of their people had to set aside some of those immediate direct international challenges.
It is clear that at the Congress, the Parliamentary Assembly and the organisation in its broadest sense, the changing world, for example the digital environment, introduces new challenges to the way in which the rule of law is enforced. It is only through the willingness of the member states that the principles that underpin the Council of Europe can be upheld. A key point for those who have concerns about the UK’s continued membership, is that, as has already been clearly stated, the number of referrals to the Court from the United Kingdom are exceptionally low, and the number of findings against the United Kingdom is lower still. It is also interesting to note that during its period of membership the largest number of representations from any member country came from Russia. It is very clear that the rule of law has some distance to travel in that country.
I commend the work that about which we have heard from a number of colleagues who serve on the Parliamentary Assembly. I also pay tribute to the work of my former colleagues on the Congress, who have done a tremendous amount to shape both the work and the priorities of the Council of Europe, especially it comes to the rights of refugees, both in the United Kingdom and following their transition from wherever they may have originated to a place of safety elsewhere. It is important that those rights are respected but also managed, and that countries such as Greece, Italy and Turkey—which accommodate millions of refugees at a time when we in the United Kingdom are worrying about tens of thousands at the most—are able to share the challenges that that poses for their communities and the implications for their politics, and also to work with us to find a more functional and effective system of managing the way in which people who are in dire need of help move around the world. As issues such as climate change begin to become a larger factor, we have an opportunity to reflect on how those rights will all play out.
I want to express the pride that I think we all feel in the role that the United Kingdom has played in developing this framework, and in its consistent maintenance and enforcement of the standards of respect for human rights, which have done so much to reduce injustice among the member states and in wider Europe over the years since the second world war. I also want to place on record my personal thanks to some of the UK ambassadors and diplomats who I know are extremely active in Strasbourg, meeting regularly and ensuring that issues that politicians debate perhaps once a session are being managed and the process is being smoothed on a daily basis. In particular, like others, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Henley.
I also thank our counterparts—leaders such as Councillor Kevin Bentley, who leads the local government delegation —whose work behind the scenes, to which we do not often have a chance to pay tribute in the House, addresses our constituents’ need for access to justice when they are abroad. While we in the House can spend a great deal of time arguing about what may in the grand scheme of things be relatively small issues, we have colleagues who are working to ensure that our fellow citizens, in this country and abroad, continue to enjoy their right to life, their right to liberty, their right to a family life, their right to pursue a business, and their right to do all the things that free human beings should be able to do within the context of a legal framework within which it can be ensured that no one infringes those rights unjustly.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
It is an honour and a privilege to speak as the leader of the SNP delegation to the Council of Europe. Let me first thank the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) for the great work he does in leading the UK delegation. I also thank Nick Wright and the staff in the UK delegation office, who are always on hand when we need help and support. Certainly, when I joined the delegation in 2018, I had a lot to learn about the Council of Europe.
I think this is one of those unique debates in which there is much more agreement than disagreement, and I have to say that what we have heard today from, in particular, my Conservative friends in the delegation genuinely gives me a sense of hope and faith in our democracy. I think that the Council of Europe may be keeping them on the right track, and keeping them honest in some respects—I mean that in the kindest possible way. It is clear to me that all the delegates who are speaking here today, particularly the Conservatives, are absolutely committed to the principles of the human rights and democracy that the Council of Europe holds so dear and champions in everything it does.
Let me say for my own part that, while having been elected as a Member of Parliament for my home town of Livingston is a huge privilege, as a queer lassie from a working-class single-parent family growing up in Livingston, I could never have imagined in my wildest dreams that—having read modern studies and then gained a politics degree—I would walk through the doors of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg as a fully fledged member. Taking up that role was a source of significant pride and honour for me.
I hope that I have played my part in my contribution since 2018, as a member of various committees and, in particular, as a member of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. I have served as the committee’s rapporteur, working on the report “Towards a human rights and public health approach to drug control policies”. The report was produced largely under covid, and preparing it online was more challenging, so I want to put on record my huge thanks to the staff who supported me—particularly Kelly, who carried out so much work and research.
During that period, once we were allowed out and about, I had the privilege of visiting a drug consumption room in Strasbourg. That was an experience that I will never forget. As the debate on drugs policy ranges across the UK, in the UK media and beyond, I must say that seeing the progress that France and other countries have made in providing such facilities was truly incredible. As other Members have said, the opportunity presented by the Council of Europe to see the workings of our European friends and neighbours really does open our eyes and broaden our horizons. I am also now relishing being the rapporteur of a report into the state of human rights, human rights defenders and journalists in Azerbaijan.
I draw attention to the comments from the hon. Member for Henley about the perceptions both in society and, perhaps, even in this place about the Council of Europe and its work. People may not know that the EU nicked the Council of Europe’s flag, and it has also adopted many of its principles. He spoke passionately about the importance of the Reykjavik summit, and I share his gratitude and delight that the UK Prime Minister attended. The work done at the summit on tackling the war in Ukraine and imposing sanctions on Russia is incredibly important. The SNP does not always feel that the UK Government are doing enough, and significantly more needs to be done—I say that as someone who sat on the Public Bill Committee for the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, which did not go nearly far enough. We must ensure that concrete steps are put in place so that frozen Kremlin-linked assets can be seized and invested into the proposed Marshall plan, which I know the Dutch Government have taken up. I hope that that will be considered.
Other Members made fantastic contributions. The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) took a moment to reflect on his 40 years since first being elected. He has been here for as long as I have been alive—I turned 40 last week. I do not mean to make him feel old in any way, but he has worked hard for his constituents, and I congratulate him on 40 years in this place. There has been much talk about immigration, and he spoke about the European Court of Human Rights ruling on the Rwanda case. The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) spoke passionately about the Council of Europe and its work, and I was genuinely delighted to hear that. I hope that those on his party’s Front Bench will reflect on that ruling, on the work of the Council of Europe and on the principle, as others have highlighted, of our continuing to be members of the Council of Europe.
It would be heartbreaking and unthinkable for the UK to turn its back on the Council of Europe and walk away. As a Member who was there during the dying days of the Brexit process, I remember the outrage and horror of our European colleagues and the pain they felt following the UK’s decision in that vote. Equally, I remember a desire to work with us and to move forward. For my part, and the SNP’s part, when Scotland is an independent nation we will, I have no doubt, be a proud member of the Council of Europe and, I hope, the European Union.
The hon. Member for Stafford (Theo Clarke) spoke about how she had been embraced at the Council of Europe as a new mum. That was wonderful to hear and, I hope, gives hope to other Members with children that they will be able to balance their responsibilities. I know it is a daunting task for many, so I congratulate her on that. She spoke about the history of the Council of Europe and its origins in the tragedy of world war two. There was unanimity across the House on Russia’s expulsion, and never has the importance of European nations working together against the war in Russia been more obvious.
The hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) spoke passionately about her work at the Council of Europe on abuse in sport, which she continues to champion. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) talked about the debates she took part in on gender-based violence. The UK was a little slower than we would have liked to ratify the Istanbul convention, and it was of course my former hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan, Eilidh Whiteford, who brought the ratification Bill to this place off the back of the great work of the Council of Europe. It took a few years to get it ratified, so I hope we will be a little speedier in future at getting important pieces of legislation ratified. I look forward to working with the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster on those important issues.
The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) talked about his work on track and trace applications—that must have been an interesting piece of work to do at that particular time—and the beauty of the horizon broadening of the Council of Europe. We must all embrace that.
I am conscious that I have gone over time, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I will once again put on the record my thanks to the hon. Member for Henley for all that he does as the head of our delegation. There will be many things on which we disagree, but we do work well together as a delegation, and I look forward to continuing to work at the Council of Europe with all my colleagues.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sure that the whole House will want to let the people of France know that our thoughts and prayers are with them after the terrible events we have seen in Annecy today. I understand that the Foreign Secretary has indicated that a British child was involved in that terrible incident. Donc, à nos amis en France, nos pensées et nos prières sont avec vous tous en ce moment.
I thank the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) for securing this debate at a critical time for democracy, human rights and the rule of law across our continent, and I thank Members on both sides of the House for their thoughtful and considered contributions—we have heard many excellent comments.
I echo the hon. Gentleman’s thanks, and the thanks of many Members, to all the UK delegation, particularly those from this side of the House, and to all the staff who facilitate the important work of the Council of Europe. I am glad he emphasised the importance of the ECHR, which has been referenced by many Members today, and of the work on election observation and monitoring. It was good to hear him mention ecocide, as my party has a firm commitment to taking that forward, were we to form the next Government. Like many Members, I share his views on the important work done by the Council of Europe, particularly in its expulsion of Russia and its firm stance in support of Ukraine, Kosovo’s membership and many other issues.
Although there is a plethora of geopolitical hotspots across Europe at the moment, and Putin’s illegal war of aggression against Ukraine is justifiably a key focus for all of us here today and in the work of the Council of Europe, there are many other areas on which the Council of Europe works that warrant the House’s attention. Indeed, we have seen attempts not only by Putin but by other global and regional actors to sow disharmony, to undermine democracy and the rule of low, and to foment tensions elsewhere in Europe, whether in the western Balkans, Moldova, the eastern Mediterranean, the Baltic or the Caucasus, all of which come under the remit of the Council of Europe. It is arguable that the work of the Council of Europe is now more important than ever.
I recognise the work of not only my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who has spoken today, but of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), who is not with us today—I thank him for all the work he has done over so many years. I also thank Lord Foulkes, Lord Griffiths and others who have been mentioned today.
It is right that, back in May, we saw the historic fourth Council of Europe summit in Reykjavik pledge unanimous support to protecting and advocating for democracy, human rights and the rule of law while reaffirming solidarity with the people of Ukraine. As the Reykjavik statement outlined
“European democracies are not established once and for all. We need to strive to uphold them each and every day… The Council of Europe remains the guiding light that assists us in fostering greater unity…for the purpose of safeguarding and realising these ideals and principles which are our common heritage.”
That is more important than ever, as we see backsliding on democracy, human rights and the rule of law in some contexts in our own neighbourhood.
Importantly, the Council of Europe focuses on practical responses and, as a number of Members have highlighted today, one key outcome is the establishment of a register of loss and damage in relation to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which will be critical as we approach the Ukraine recovery conference here in London this month. As we have seen with the terrible events over the past 48 hours in relation to the Kakhovka dam, which will have not only an immediate impact but a long-term impact due to the spreading of mines and the damage to agricultural land, which will have a long-term impact on Ukraine’s economy. I have written to the Government today— I hope the Minister will draw the attention of the Minister for Europe, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty), to that letter—asking practical questions about what support the UK will give in relation to that specific incident.
It is critical that we support the register, as it will be crucial in informing how we might be able to generate resources to support Ukraine in the long term. I hope the Minister will say a little about progress on seizing, not just freezing, Russian state assets and, indeed, expanding and deepening our sanctions legislation. The summit also gave a clear pan-European expression of solidarity with those affected by Russia’s war of aggression against not only Ukraine but Georgia—of course, we have also seen what has happened in Moldova. It is important that we work together with our allies on all those issues.
I mentioned the ECHR and I am glad it has come up multiple times in this debate, with strong support from across the House. I heard what the Prime Minister and others have had to say. Of course, the UK signed that final declaration that set out
“our unconditional obligation to abide by the final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in any case to which we are Parties.”
It set out our support for the ECHR, so I wonder whether he could have a word with the Home Secretary and some other naysayers on the Government side of the House. However, it was good to hear the support here today from many colleagues. The ECHR is crucial in relation to the Good Friday agreement and so many other agreements to which we are party.
As I said in our last debate on the Council of Europe, the ECHR has delivered more than 16,000 judgments across a range of issues, not just the few that get highlighted in the media. Such issues include the right to life; the prohibition of torture; the prohibition of slavery and forced labour; the right to liberty and security; the right to a fair trial; the right to private and family life; freedom of religion; freedom of expression; the prohibition of discrimination; and the protection of property. The ECHR rightly stands up for those values that are at the core of not only the British legal system, but the European system of human rights, which we played a crucial role in establishing over many decades. So I hope the Minister will assure us that the apparent change in tone from the Government on the ECHR will continue and it will be reaffirmed in his remarks today.
The Istanbul convention has rightly been mentioned by a number of Members. I wish to highlight my concerns about the Government’s reservation on ratifying article 59, which protects migrant and refugee women from domestic abuse and violence. Labour Members have made it clear that we would set out a clear, strict timetable on completing outstanding actions to ratify the convention in full. I hope that the Minister will say something about why the Government continue to have a reservation on that matter, because it undermines our position on a crucial measure brought forward by the Council of Europe to protect the world’s most vulnerable women and girls.
We have heard a lot of discussion today about the importance of upholding democratic practice and the cultures of political pluralism across the continent. That is central to the Council of Europe’s remit. Reference has rightly been made to the fact that its Parliamentary Assembly has led more than 250 election observer missions, and many Members from all parts of the House have paid tribute to the work done in those. The Council of Europe stands ready at every phase of an election cycle to ensure the integrity of ballot boxes, through devising legal frameworks for elections; training and educating local officials; encouraging voter registration; and verifying results. Those processes are elemental to our democratic life, but they can be open to exploitation and exposed to interference. It is crucial that we continue to support that work.
It has been noted, but let me say that in the past few months PACE has monitored elections in Montenegro and observed the second round of Turkey’s presidential election. It is also currently holding an inquiry on the impact of artificial intelligence. It is crucial that we understand that and I know that in due course we will be debating in this Chamber its impact on our democratic systems. We have had some worrying developments in that regard and it is important that we are working with European partners on that. They are also doing crucial work on the challenges facing Belarusians in exile from Lukashenko’s brutal regime.
Lastly, I come to the issue of human rights and the rule of law, because the Council of Europe has played a crucial role in protecting national minorities; the rights of LGBT+ people; migrant populations; Roma and Travellers; children; women; and people with disabilities. It has also worked on the elimination of trafficking. Labour stands squarely beside the Council of Europe in its defence of the rights of people across Europe. It is Pride Month, and I had the pleasure last week of being in another Council of Europe member state, Malta, which arguably now leads Europe in its support for LGBT+ people and is doing some excellent work. Unfortunately, when we see backsliding—some of it in this country, regrettably—we need to be looking to allies across Europe and in the Council of Europe to see how we can underpin crucial rights for LGBT+ people.
The Council of Europe is rightly working on a range of other human rights issues. We know of how the ongoing blockade of the Lachin corridor in the Caucasus is having an impact on the social, political and economic rights of those living in Nagorno-Karabakh, an issue that I have raised regularly with Ministers. We know of journalists, trade unions and civil society leaders being pursued and prosecuted relentlessly for their advocacy in a range of contexts across Europe. I will not go into a long list of examples, but a number of them have been mentioned today.
Let us be clear, the human rights of Europeans have been hard fought for and hard won, but sadly they are not an inevitability; there will always be individuals and regimes that will seek to erode them. That is why the work of institutions such as the Council of Europe is so essential—whether that be rapporteurs working with Azeri officials to end police harassment of LGBT+ people, the work being done to end the violence against Roma women in Serbia, or the inquiry being conducted by the special representative for migration and refugees into the welfare of Ukrainian refugee children.
This has been a thorough and important debate. Labour remains resolute in its support for the work of the Council of Europe and will continue to work with colleagues across the House to further many of its workstreams and agendas. The Council of Europe is a manifestly diverse and dynamic organisation. We wish to make it clear that we will always seek opportunities to work alongside our allies and partners on issues of human rights, the rule of law and democracy. The Council of Europe is key to addressing all of those and upholding those very British and European values which all of us stand for in this House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (David Rutley)
It is good to take part in this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know that you were able to come in only for the tail end of it, but it was one of those occasions when it was genuinely good to see both sides of the House speak up unanimously in favour of this important institution, with heartfelt gratitude for its existence. The Minister for Europe, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty), would have been delighted to take part in this debate, but he was not available to attend. It is therefore my pleasure to respond on behalf of the Government.
I wish to congratulate—along with just about everybody in the Chamber—my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) on his incredible work. I had always thought that he had done well, but, having listened to all the tributes to him from right across the Chamber, I now know that he has done even better than I originally thought. That is quite extraordinary, so I say well done to him and thank him very much. He and other members of the UK delegation play a vital role in promoting the Council of Europe and its work. It is also right to highlight the important work of Sandy Moss and our superb team there as well.
I wish to say that our thoughts are with the people of Ukraine—especially those living in the area that has been affected by the flooding over recent days—whose lives, homes and livelihoods are threatened. This was just another terrible incident that has happened in this tragic war. I also echo the timely remarks of the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). Our thoughts and prayers are with the people of France— I cannot speak French, so I will go along with his words —following that terrible attack in Annecy. They are also with the family of the British child who was sadly injured in that attack.
I am grateful for all the contributions that have been made, and I will seek to respond to as many as I can in my winding-up remarks. The UK has long been at the forefront of the Council of Europe, from its creation through the Treaty of London in 1949 to the Prime Minister attending the Reykjavik summit just a few weeks ago. The Council of Europe has been, and will continue to be, important to our human rights and foreign policy agenda. That is why the work of the Parliamentary Assembly is so vital.
We are grateful to the UK delegation for its efforts to promote and protect UK interests. As the Prime Minister said at the summit in Reykjavik last month, the Council of Europe has an extraordinary legacy. The reason that it has endured for so long is its important role in upholding the fundamental rights and freedoms underpinning our security and prosperity. We continue to co-operate and collaborate with our friends across Europe to uphold and promote the values of the Council of Europe.
As I said at the start of my speech, it is good to hear such strong support for the Council of Europe. The hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) made some really important points. I could see her pride in being able to be part of the delegation, which was true for many others as well. It is very clear that, although we have differences, there is definitely more that unites us than divides us, particularly on core values around democracy and freedom. Like her, I regard it an extreme honour to be able to help engage with interlocutors and often friends around the world as we seek to promote those values. I also recognise the significant 40th anniversary of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)—[Interruption.] Ruby, indeed.
Putin’s heinous and unjustified war of aggression against Ukraine is the biggest threat to democracy, human rights and the rule of law on our continent since the Council was established, and it is rightly standing strong against those threats. Last year, the organisation took quick and decisive action to expel Russia, as has been highlighted. We should not forget that the UK parliamentary delegation and the Government were at the forefront in calling for that expulsion.
Today, the Council of Europe is playing a vital role in supporting Ukraine. Its work to establish the register of damage is an important step in securing financial accountability and supporting justice for the people of Ukraine, as was highlighted by my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Theo Clarke) and for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) in their excellent remarks. The Prime Minister signed the register at the summit as a founding participant, and we will continue to work with the Council and our friends worldwide to ensure support for it.
We also look forward to welcoming the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe and many other member states to the Ukraine recovery conference later this month, as the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth highlighted—we will follow up on the important points that he raised in his letter. That will enable us to galvanise international investment in reconstruction as we co-host the conference with Ukraine, building on the £220 million of humanitarian assistance we have already provided.
Responding to Russia’s war, democratic backsliding and growing authoritarian trends, we renewed our commitment to the Council of Europe’s democratic values and principles through the Reykjavik principles of democracy. The UK was proud to be at the forefront of that effort. We also demonstrated our commitment to the Council’s convention system as the cornerstone of its protection of human rights.
We were instrumental in ensuring that the declaration referenced the principle of subsidiarity and the doctrine of margin of appreciation. Those key concepts define the boundaries of the Strasbourg Court’s role and rightly allow it to concentrate on serious systemic issues when they arise. The UK has a strong tradition of both ensuring that rights and liberties are protected domestically and fulfilling our international human rights obligations. As the Prime Minister said in this House a few months ago:
“The UK is and will remain a member of the ECHR.”—[Official Report, 27 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 594.]
As many of my hon. Friends have noted, the Council of Europe is an important institution for the United Kingdom. We are actively involved in much of its diverse work, from minority languages to the environment to violence against women and girls, which has been called out in this debate. Our membership allows us to shape international norms and standards and to reform conventions such as mutual legal assistance to better reflect today’s challenges.
The breadth, scope and ambition of the Council’s work is the reason its value has endured, and the UK is determined to ensure that that continues as we face the challenges of tomorrow. Digital technologies, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) noted, have transformed the world, but we cannot ignore the complex risks to human rights that they can present, particularly when it comes to artificial intelligence. That is why the UK is committed to the Council of Europe’s pioneering work to develop the world’s first international treaty on AI in relation to human rights, democracy and rule of law.
The UK is also taking ambitious action to deliver a cleaner and greener world, and we are pleased to be engaging with the Council on how we might define the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, which has been raised in this debate. Illegal migration is another fast-growing problem and a pressing human rights issue. If we are to stop it, we need a concerted and collective effort from all countries in Europe to shut down people-smuggling gangs and to block them at every stage of their illegal and inhumane journey. We will continue to work with the Council of Europe to ensure that it plays its part in confronting illegal migration.
I recognise the work of members of the UK delegation on migration, refugees and displaced persons, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, who recently, as she said, visited Strasbourg with her baby—that is real dedication to the cause and I thank her for that work. On Kosovo, I just wanted to highlight to the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who is not in her place—[Interruption.] Oh, there she is—excuse me. She made an important contribution on a number of issues, but I want to reassure her that the UK Government welcome the decision by the Committee of Ministers to refer Kosovo’s application to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. That is the next step in the process.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, we recognise the importance of the Istanbul convention in helping to protect women and girls. There is also important work to be done on issues such as educational impacts during the pandemic, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) highlighted. We should recognise the wider work of the Council, including its ongoing work on election monitoring, which my hon. Friend the Member for Henley highlighted and on which he and my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner have done considerable work.
Before I conclude, I wish my good and hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young) very well for his first outing at the Dispatch Box in the Adjournment—good luck.
To end, let me reiterate what valuable work the Council of Europe does. Next year marks 75 years since the signing of the treaty of London—that is even longer than the right hon. Member for Islington North has been a Member of this House. It is an established, venerable institution. The UK has been a leading player since the Council’s inception. In the face of the challenges on our doorstep in Europe, we will strive to ensure that the Council’s value and legacy endure as they rightly should.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Thank you. The last words go to John Howell.
John Howell
I began this debate by thanking Madam Deputy Speaker because she is a former member of the Council of Europe, and so are you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a great pleasure to have two former members chair this debate.
I thank everyone for the enormous kindness of their words and for their contributions to the debate. There can be no clearer estimate of the appreciation across the House for the Council of Europe than this debate. I am incredibly grateful for all contributions.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Thank you, John, for everything that you do on the Council of Europe. It was a great honour to be twice a member of the Council. The current Turkish Foreign Secretary—if he still is that—made me a life member of the Council of Europe, which is a great honour. Thank you very much.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the work of the Council of Europe.
East Putney station
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I present a petition from 3,176 residents of Putney asking for a lift at East Putney tube station on the District line. East Putney has a high footfall of more than 6 million passengers a year and a correspondingly high number of local residents with mobility issues who cannot use their own station.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Putney,
Declares that the latest available figures show a footfall of 6.18 million passengers a year through East Putney station, more than neighbouring Southfields and Putney Bridge stations yet there is currently no step-free access to the station platform, notes that this makes it impossible for many people with mobility issues to use the station and very difficult and dangerous for parents with wheelchairs, anyone with luggage and during peak usage times, and further declares that step-free access at East Putney Station is urgently needed to increase accessibility for all those wishing to use it.
The petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to urge the Government to consider East Putney tube station for step free funding and deliver step free access at East Putney station.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002835]
Deep Geothermal Energy
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
It is opportune, on a day when the sun is blazing outside, to raise in this House what is sometimes referred to as the sun underneath our feet, or, to give it its formal term, deep geothermal.
“That must be too good to be true” was my reaction when I was introduced to deep geothermal technology. An environmentally friendly, dependable and cost-effective source of heat and power that can be found right underneath us? Surely not. I have been pleasantly surprised to learn that deep geothermal is, in fact, just as good as it sounds. Deep geothermal technology uses the heat from naturally occurring sources of hot water deep underground to generate a large amount of usable heat and energy. Heat radiates from the earth’s core, which is hotter than the surface of the sun, and although it dissipates as it reaches the surface, the heat remains significant. Where that hot rock overlaps with underground water sources, the combination allows for deep geothermal plants. Think about naturally occurring hot springs such as the famous Roman baths; it is the same principle. In places like that, the water that is being heated has found its way to the surface naturally, but modern technology can allow this hot water to be accessed artificially through drilling into aquifers to access the warm water below. Heat exchangers then transmit the heat to homes and buildings.
I have been introduced to this technology because of its great potential locally in Cheshire, as we sit above the hot underground aquifer known as the Cheshire Basin. The possibility of a deep geothermal plant has been considered a number of times locally but never progressed to firm plans, so I began looking at how we might get there. As I learnt more about it, I saw the potential for not just my area but the whole country. I was therefore delighted to be asked by the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), to produce a review on the potential for making better use of deep geothermal energy as we strive for net zero. I was similarly pleased when the current Prime Minister asked me to continue that work.
The obvious first step was to consider what is happening in other countries with similar geology and thriving deep geothermal industries. Geological experts pointed me towards France and Germany, among others. Deep geothermal energy is heating 250,000 homes in Paris, and across France more than 600 MWh of heat are produced annually, as the Government aim to increase the number of schemes by 40% by 2030. Munich is pouring in €1 billion through to 2035 to develop deep geothermal and make the city’s heating carbon-neutral. More widely, Germany is already producing more than 353 MWh annually, and the Government are targeting at least 100 new geothermal projects.
As part of my review, I was able to visit a deep geothermal plant in Pullach, a suburb of Munich. I got to see for myself how quietly and efficiently this hot water can be utilised. No one would know that the little building I visited next to a park and a school was heating the local swimming pool, businesses, the town hall and hundreds of homes. The obvious question that follows, seeing this success elsewhere, is: why do we not see the same here? I understand that there has been some debate about whether the geology in countries such as France and Germany is more favourable to deep geothermal. The overwhelming feedback I received during my review was that that is not the case. While the greater temperatures needed to generate electricity, rather than just hot water for heating, may be less available, that is far from a reason not to see a flourishing industry here in the UK, for reasons I will go on to talk about.
My understanding is that the biggest difference between the UK and many of our neighbours is that Government support to help to get deep geothermal industries off the ground is widespread there. That consists of a mix of tariff guarantees, insurance support and grants. It is no surprise that investors will favour countries that are supporting an industry when it comes to deciding where to put their money. At one point, we did have a tariff guarantee for renewable heat. It was not taken up, but I think it was a matter of timing. It was ahead of the game—the game being the current huge appetite there is from investors and oil and gas to diversify on the way to net zero.
Of course, we can expect to see some differences between the renewable resources created in each country. We cannot expect to be world leaders in each field. We lead in solar and wind, for example, but we need to balance the disadvantages of the technologies we lead on. We know that solar and wind wax and wane with the weather and need large swathes of land. Deep geothermal does not. It is always on and always there, whatever the weather, and sites usually take no more than 1 or 2 acres. Even if we cannot lead in every technology, we cannot afford to not at least grab the lowest hanging fruit of all the technologies on offer.
That is because getting to net zero by 2050 will require us to pull every possible lever. Transitioning our heating systems is a particular challenge. The UK has more than 28.5 million homes and 1.9 million other buildings—offices, hospitals, shops and warehouses. The majority of those are heated by gas boilers. Nearly a fifth of all the UK’s emissions come from buildings. Transitioning to an electric-based system of heating is expected to do the lion’s share, but while we can of course support the growth of skills and jobs for technologies dependent on electricity, we can see even now that the workforce and manufacturing capacity in this field creates challenges.
Deep geothermal plants would allow us to recruit from an entirely different workforce and existing part of the economy in delivering results, and this is a workforce that we already lead on. Our oil and gas industry is one of the best in the western world, with world-beating companies and workforces with a long history of success not just in the North sea but globally. Deep geothermal provides us with the opportunity to recruit that workforce into drilling for clean heat instead of fossil fuels. That will not only help us get to net zero, but help that industry, with all the jobs it currently holds, to be a positive part of the transition. It is clearly in our interests to ensure that the UK is an internationally competitive environment for deep geothermal.
As with wind and solar at their outset, long-term financial incentives would help to unlock millions in capital investment and kick-start the industry. That transfers all the risk to the private sector instead of using taxpayer grants. This does not need to be a repeat of the open-ended subsidies that drove the wind and solar industries forward. Proposals from industry ask for a capped amount of support, which would still produce the results we need. Grant-based schemes inherently do not provide investor confidence; they involve too much uncertainty. Over time, a number of grants may well total up to a significant amount of investment from Government, but a company taking the decision to invest in drilling rigs and job roles on the chance that it may get some grants is a much trickier prospect than knowing that, if it makes that investment and is successful in delivering, it will be supported.
In a report by the Association for Renewable Energy and Clean Technology and Arup, the ask from industry was for tariff support at £55 per megawatt-hour for 30 initial plants for 20 years. I saw with interest that that was the amount agreed by Government to support the green gas industry. That suggests to me that the Government consider it value for money.
Of course, there are wider considerations beyond just the unit price. I have talked about the valuable role that geothermal could play in helping our oil and gas industry transition, but there are other factors when we reflect on where deep geothermal could be delivered. As part of my report, I commissioned Durham University’s Energy Institute to review data about where we know the best combinations of hot water and rocks are, based on the data available for England. It is important to point out that other places for which we have less data could also be candidates, and I am sure there are opportunities across our family of nations, but the aim was to kick-start local stakeholders and drive forward projects from the ground up. I look forward to working with MPs and councils in those areas.
An unexpected but very stark finding of the review was that six of the 45 sites in England are in the top 10 of the index used by Government to identify areas in need of levelling up. Some 44% of the locations listed as having high potential for deep geothermal fall within the top 100 levelling-up locations. That is three times the amount we would expect to see as a result of chance, and it gives us yet another reason to look closely at that technology. It could help bring jobs and investment into some of the places most in need of it. We can also help secure public support for the energy transition if we are able to ensure that Government investment into it is spread to where it would generate the widest possible benefit. We have seen how some coastal communities have benefited from offshore wind, for example.
That is not to say that the industry is at a standstill; there are green shoots. The United Downs deep geothermal plant in Cornwall was a project initially supported by both the UK Government and EU grant funding, but with a recent private sector investment by Kerogen Capital and Thrive Renewables, it is set to go live next year, providing both heat and electricity. The local council has just received funding from the green heat network fund to enable the heat it generates to be used locally, and as I understand it, the Eden deep geothermal heat plant will go live very shortly, heating the world-famous Eden biomes as well as its offices and greenhouses, and potentially a distillery.
Near to my constituency, in Stoke, there is planning permission and a funding application in for a deep geothermal plant, and I have been supporting Leighton Hospital in discussions about securing a plant to provide the heat that that hospital needs. There is a wider group of NHS trusts exploring that approach, working with the carbon and energy fund and seeking support from the public sector decarbonisation pot. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young) can pass on to the Energy Minister that I hope he will look encouragingly at those applications for funding to the Department, because we know that if we drill in some places, it helps us to understand the wider geology in a way that can benefit the whole industry.
As an advocate of this technology, it is important for me to be clear about its challenges. Making use of the heat from deep geothermal requires the building of heat networks. That is not a major issue for large single-use customers such as the hospitals I mentioned, and it is also not an issue for big businesses or civic buildings. It is also uncomplicated if it is included from the outset when building homes, but it is a challenge for existing individual homes. It is certainly not an insurmountable challenge—in Pullach, where I visited, homeowners are choosing to join the network bit by bit—but it does mean that deep geothermal is not an overnight solution for all of our existing housing stock. Thankfully, as I have explained, the challenge is so enormous that deep geothermal can play an important role, even if it is not the entire solution.
We also need to build public support and understanding. Having seen one for myself, I know that having a heat exchanger in a home is really no different from having a boiler, but we need to explain that. I think the best evidence of the environmental credentials of deep geothermal is the support it has received from Greenpeace and the UN, and as I mentioned, one of the first sites due to go live is at Cornwall’s Eden Project, widely recognised as a leading UK environmental charity.
I hope that today I have been able to explain clearly the benefits and opportunities that deep geothermal presents, based on everything I learned in producing the review. I want to take a moment to thank some of those who helped me: I thank IGas Energy and GT Energy for facilitating and funding a visit to Pullach to view their deep geothermal network, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) for his advice on the conduct of a review. Thanks are also due to Professor Jon Gluyas and the Durham Energy Institute, the British Geological Survey, the Association for Renewable Energy and Clean Technology, the Coal Authority, the Eden Project, Pullach municipal council, the United Downs Deep Geothermal Power project, the Geothermal Energy Advancement Association, the Geological Society and the House of Commons Library.
I also thank the Secretary of State and the Energy Minister for the support they have given, and officials in the Department who have been open and co-operative and want to do what they can to understand how we can make the most of deep geothermal. Of course, I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) for asking me to start this review, and the Prime Minister for asking me to continue it.
I hope that my report, and recent efforts by others to highlight the opportunity that deep geothermal presents, will spark the beginning of a renewed effort to kick-start a UK-based industry. If we dig deep on geothermal, we will help level up the UK and reap the rewards that will provide.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Now, for his maiden speech from the Dispatch Box, with his nearest and dearest looking on—so no pressure—I call Jacob Young. Good luck!
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
I am grateful and proud to be making my first appearance at the Dispatch Box—hopefully it will not be my last.
I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) for securing this important and timely debate. I also thank him for his thorough report into deep geothermal energy and the associated economic opportunities, which was produced at the request of the Government. His report is right in its summation that getting to net zero by 2050 will require us to pull every possible lever, and it is also right that this transition can deliver major economic benefits to our country at the same time. I know that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) and many others are interested in the potential of this energy source in their areas.
Before I move to the specifics, let me make it clear that this Government remain committed to meeting our net zero ambitions by 2050. Indeed, the Russian invasion of Ukraine and Putin’s weaponisation of hydrocarbons has only hastened our acceleration away from fossil fuels and made energy security even more of an urgent priority. Thankfully, we have made rapid progress on switching to home-grown renewable electricity in recent years, this country is now home to four of the largest operational wind farms in the world, and we are building a cutting-edge new lithium refinery in Teesside, but we need to do more.
We know that we need to keep investing in renewable sources if we are to reduce our dependence on volatile energy markets and support the global fight against climate change. That means continuing to make the most of the opportunities that our geology and geography afford us, including, as my hon. Friend set out so well, the huge potential for geothermal power.
Jacob Young
Like me, my hon. Friend is a keen advocate for green energy, and Teesside can indeed be home to many green energy sources. I thank him for pointing that out.
While geothermal is a relatively new source of energy in the UK, we need only look to Cornwall, as my hon. Friend said, for an idea of its potential to provide clean and secure power for our households and businesses. The UK’s first geothermal plant, operated by Geothermal Engineering Ltd at its United Downs site near Redruth, is set to begin generating next year, with a baseload capacity of 2 MW, rising to a combined power and heat capacity of 25 MW after four years. Geothermal Engineering Ltd has plans to develop other plants across the UK by 2028, producing enough energy to power 70,000 homes.
We recognise that the widespread construction of these plants could help to create thousands of skilled jobs in areas where those are lacking, from Cornwall to Cumbria, but what makes this technology even more exciting is that it enables decarbonisation in many other sectors, too. For example, we see the potential to decarbonise heat through clean heat network schemes or to scale up zero-emission vehicle production through battery-grade lithium extraction. Indeed, the potential for battery-grade lithium extraction from the waters pumped at the United Downs site shows promise, with Geothermal Engineering Ltd predicting that 15,000 tonnes of battery-grade lithium could be produced a year, which is approximately a quarter of domestic demand. The firm has also been successful in its £12 million application to the automotive transformation fund to provide battery-grade lithium.
As my hon. Friend’s report notes, this technology is not without its challenges. Current departmental analysis suggests that its relative price is substantially higher than that of other renewables, largely due to the high cost involved in drilling safely. The potential capacity of geothermal power is significantly smaller in comparison with other renewable technologies, and is currently estimated to be between 170 MW and 2 GW. This means that large-scale deployment is likely to be limited, and there are also uncertainties concerning geological risks that must be taken into account.
The reality is that every renewable energy source has its strengths and its weaknesses. In the months and years ahead, we are going to leave no stone unturned in our quest for the cleanest, most cost-effective energy available. That is why the Prime Minister set up the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero earlier this year. We are working closely with industry to ensure that the right support is in place to develop new technologies, including geothermal, whether that with is the green heat network fund, which has allocated Cornwall council £22 million to work with Geothermal Engineering Ltd to develop the Langarth deep geothermal heat network—the UK’s first heating system to use geothermal energy to heat nearly 4,000 local homes and public facilities in the area, as my hon. Friend mentioned —or with the contracts for difference scheme, which is the Government’s main mechanism for supporting low-carbon electricity generation. Geothermal technologies that generate electricity are eligible for the scheme, and the bidding process is currently under way. We will continue to review the support we provide to ensure that all these technologies can reach their full potential.
I want to finish by reiterating to the House our determination to make the most of every home-grown green technology available in our unprecedented transition to a net zero economy so that we can secure our long- term energy supply, keep bills down for consumers and raise the bar on tackling climate change. The report by my hon. Friend—he is known as Mr Geothermal—will undoubtedly help us consider whether there is a bigger role for deep geothermal energy and how we could support it. I am confident that the geothermal industry will continue to develop across every viable corner of the United Kingdom, and I look forward to seeing the Energy Minister continuing to engage with my hon. Friend on this vitally important issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Energy Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting)
Thursday 8th June 2023
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Energy Act 2023 View all Energy Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 8 June 2023 - (8 Jun 2023)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 6 - Morrissey, Joy
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members that Hansard colleagues will be very grateful for speaking notes to be emailed to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Please have all electronic devices on silent. Tea and coffee—none of you are sinning today—are not allowed during sittings; the only refreshment permitted in Committee is water.
I understand that the Government wish to move a motion to amend the programme order agreed by the Committee on 23 May and amended on 25 May, to change the order of consideration of the provisions of the Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That paragraph 2 of the Order of the Committee of Tuesday 23 May (as amended on 25 May) be amended—
(a) by leaving out “132; Schedule 7; Clause 133; Schedule 8; Clauses 134 to 137; Schedule 9; Clauses 138” and inserting “131; Clauses 140”;
(b) by inserting, after “273;”, “Clause 132; Schedule 7; Clause 133; Schedule 8; Clauses 134 to 137; Schedule 9; Clauses 138 and 139;”. —(Andrew Bowie.)
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
The Government motion will remove some of the discussion we would have had this morning on the independent system operator from this part of the Bill to the end of it, in effect—in terms of our proceedings. I have no objection to that happening, but I would like to know why.
While we are on matters of procedures, I also ask the Minister about his intentions for the new clauses tabled yesterday. They are clauses on the support of—
The Chair
Order. Dr Whitehead, I query whether that is in scope of this particular motion.
The Chair
I think that would be better. The Minister will respond to the substantive point.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Andrew Bowie)
The hon. Member for Southampton, Test was right to ask for an explanation. The motion is to delay consideration of clause 132, schedule 7 and so on, which might otherwise have been reached in the course of today were we to proceed as planned originally. The Ways and Means resolution agreed by the House immediately after Second Reading needs to be supplemented before the Committee can consider the provisions. I understand that the Ways and Means resolution will be tabled as soon as possible in the coming days.
The Chair
The motion has not been agreed by the Programming Sub-Committee, so it may be proceeded with only if everyone is content. Does anyone object to the motion being considered? No objection.
Question put and agreed to.
Dr Whitehead
On a point of order, Ms Nokes. I was trying to slip this into our previous conversation, but I am happy to do it as a point of order. By the way, welcome to chairing the Committee; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. You are my next-door neighbour in Southampton, Ms Nokes—sorry, not Southampton, but near Southampton—
Dr Whitehead
A little bit—a road at the top of my constituency has you, Ms Nokes, as MP for half of it, while I am the MP for the other half. We are indeed close neighbours.
As has been discussed, the Government have kindly tabled a number of new clauses relating to Great British Nuclear and energy-intensive industry assistance. That brings to four the number of areas on which the Government have introduced new clauses while the Bill has been proceeding. This is beginning to resemble those episodes where people book a holiday in Spain, thinking they have a nice hotel, only to get there and find that it is a building site, with no rooms booked in sight.
That aside, given that the clauses have been tabled, it would be helpful to have an indication of when the Government intend to consider them. I say that because the Opposition need to properly scrutinise them, and may want to introduce amendments. The Minister will know that the deadline for tabling such amendments is today, so if the Minister was considering dropping those clauses into the Bill next week, that would obviously prevent us from tabling amendments in the usual manner. I would be grateful if the Minister clarified his intentions.
Andrew Bowie
I guarantee that the new clauses will be debated at the end of our process in Committee. I am sure there will be adequate time to debate them in depth. It may resemble a building site, but we are on the route to building a luxury, all-inclusive, five-star resort through this Bill, so he has nothing to worry about in that regard.
The Chair
I remind the Minister that it is not for him to make guarantees about when amendments might be grouped, but for the Chair.
The Chair
We resume consideration of the Bill with amendment 91 to clause 106, with which it will be convenient to debate clause 106 stand part. I call Dr Whitehead to move the amendment.
Dr Whitehead
I do not wish to move or speak to amendment 91 because it is factually deficient. I have a few words to say in the clause stand part debate.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I know that the shadow Minister said he did not want to speak to amendment 91, but for pure indulgence I would like to say a few things. The shadow Minister admitted that the amendment is not quite factually correct. It is clear that it was actually more on message for the Government than the Government are themselves in terms of heat pump installations. If it had been moved, I would have supported the amendment because it would set a much more ambitious target for the installation of heat pumps: at least 600,000 per year by 2025, instead of the Government’s target of 2028, which is completely out of kilter with the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee. I urge the Government to reconsider that and adopt a more ambitious programme.
Will the Minister say how many heat pumps were installed in 2022? What is the plan to get up to the Government’s target of 600,000 heat pump installations a year? This is an important Bill but it also shows the need for the Government to think in the round in terms of legislation. The clause and the amendment are all about heat pump installations. We are still awaiting the future homes standard. Will the Minister outline what will happen with that? Last year more than 200,000 houses were built in the UK—the largest number completed since the 2008 housing crash—and the majority of them are going to be connected to the gas grid and will not have heat pumps installed. Year in, year out, the number of houses that will need to be retrofitted with heat pumps will increase until the Government bring forward the future homes standard. I would like more clarity from the Minister on that, and about targets the Government are looking to set to drive it forward.
Dr Whitehead
The clause relates to the question of the installation of heat pumps, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun correctly drew attention to. The intention of the amendment, had it been moved, was to place the Government’s own targets in the legislation. There is a question about the difference between those targets and what has actually happened so far with the boiler upgrade scheme, for example, with 30,000 heat pumps per year being underwritten for a three-year period, leaving a difference between the target and the number of heat pumps likely to be installed under that scheme of more than 500,000.
There is a considerable difference between Government targets, how many heat pumps have already been installed and how many heat pumps are likely to be installed over the next few years. One of the purposes of the amendment, which was not moved, was to stiffen the Government’s resolve in that respect by placing those targets on the face of the Bill, so that the question of how the gap is made up is rather more focused in the minds of the Government now and, indeed, any future Government.
It is important that we start the process of filling in the gap between target and actuality. I would be grateful if the Minister could give us a few brief views on how that might be done, and what he intends to do, possibly on the basis of this legislation, to make that gap clearly reachable and incorporate it into the progress that has already been made with heat pump installations.
Andrew Bowie
To answer the hon. Gentleman’s substantive point on why we are not incorporating the Government’s own target of 600,000 heat pumps per year by 2028, there are compelling reasons why we believe it would be unwise to set any particular target in the enabling powers in the Bill. The setting of scheme targets is best suited to the making of regulations. That is in part because that is when the best assessment of the relevant market conditions can be made, so that targets do not exceed what is viable and result in unintended consequences, which we would be worried about had we put the target on the face of the Bill.
Andrew Bowie
I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s questions in a moment, if he will be so patient. It is also because it is very possible that the scheme, under those powers, might be best focused not on any entire ambition for the deployment of one or more low-carbon heating technologies, but on a particular subset of that overall aim, such as retrofit properties but not new builds. That would ensure flexibility.
Alan Brown
I understand that the Minister does not want the targets to be on the face of the Bill; does that mean the Government plan to bring forward secondary legislation to facilitate the targets?
Andrew Bowie
That will be a matter for secondary legislation. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and other Committee members cannot wait for the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee to debate the detail of that.
I will answer the hon. Gentleman’s original questions. He asked why the Bill does not introduce the 900,000 heat pump installations recommended by the Climate Change Committee’s balanced pathway to net zero. Indeed, he asked why our aim is to introduce two thirds of that number, 600,000. The Government’s ambition for developing the heat pump market this decade is strategically compatible with all future heating scenarios, including those where hydrogen plays a major role. I know that the hon. Gentleman is fully aware of that, given his interest in hydrogen.
The CCC pathway, which suggests a market of 900,000 installations by 2028, assumes a minimal role for hydrogen in 2050. By contrast, it is interesting that the CCC’s hydrogen-led pathway suggests a much more modest deployment rate of heat pumps in earlier years. The Government believe that the step-change ambition for building a heat pump market as set out, which does not pre-empt wider strategic decisions in the middle of this decade, is the most prudent approach to this investment.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s second question, the building regulations will continue to set a performance-based standard, rather than mandating or banning the use of any technology if we do not want to head down that route. However, homes built under the future homes standard will be zero-carbon ready, with low-carbon heating and high levels of energy efficiency. I can confirm that 70,000 heat pumps a year are now being installed in the United Kingdom.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 106 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 107
Further provision about scheme regulations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Bowie
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. Clauses 107 to 113 detail the administration, enforcement, penalties and appeals related to the low-carbon heat schemes. Clause 107 sets out the various operational, administrative and monitoring features of the scheme that the regulations may provide for. As set out in a recent second policy consultation, the Government believe that it is important that the scheme enables participants a degree of flexibility to meet the targets. To that end, the clause allows the regulations to specify how scheme participants may meet or partially meet targets, other than directly selling low-carbon heating appliances themselves, such as through trade in certificates with other parties. The clause also provides for regulations to specify the consequences and options for scheme participants who fail to meet a target under the scheme.
Clause 108 enables the appointment in regulations of an administrator for a low-carbon heat scheme and the conferral of functions on that scheme administrator. The clause sets out that one or more public authorities may be appointed as scheme administrator. That would include the Secretary of State, as well as public bodies and regulators such as the Environment Agency and Ofgem. The clause also provides for regulations to authorise an appointed administrator to arrange for functions to be carried out by a third party.
Clause 109 provides for the assessment, enforcement and sanctioning of non-compliance with a low-carbon heat scheme. It enables the administrator to conduct a range of enforcement activities and provides for the regulations to establish sanctions for non-compliance, such as the failure to produce the required documentation or to make a necessary payment. That could be in the shape of both civil penalties, and potentially criminal offences where warranted. Clause 110 sets out that regulations may determine how any payments made by virtue of the penalties set out in clause 109, or by virtue of the payment framework provided for by clause 107, are to be used.
Clause 111 provides for the regulation to establish an appeals process against decisions by the administrator of a low-carbon heat scheme, or against penalties or other enforcement action taken for non-compliance by a scheme participant. Such an appeals process is relatively commonplace for obligations and trading schemes of that kind, so that disputes can be settled, enhancing confidence in decision-making processes related to scheme administration.
Clause 112 establishes procedural requirements for the making of low-carbon heat scheme regulations. The affirmative parliamentary procedure will be used for statutory instruments that first establish a low-carbon heat scheme. The affirmative procedure will also apply for regulations that make substantive changes to the fundamental parameters of a scheme—that is to say, the parties in scope of the targets or the heating appliances that the scheme is designed to encourage. Where the regulations are more administrative in nature, and the fundamental elements of a scheme are not being altered, the negative resolution procedure will apply. That will include, for instance, adjustments to the requirements for the keeping or provision of information, year-to-year adjustment of targets, or adjustments to the rules around the certificate trading between parties.
The clause also stipulates a requirement that before making scheme regulations the Secretary of State must consult the relevant Ministers in the devolved Administrations, so far as the regulations apply in relation to those respective nations. The Government have constructive engagement with our counterparts in the devolved Administrations at both official and ministerial level on the development of the clean heat market mechanism. We look forward to continuing to work closely and consultatively as we move forward with the scheme’s development. Finally, clause 113 provides definitions of key terms within the chapter.
Dr Whitehead
These are sensible provisions, following the initial clauses about low-carbon heat schemes, and they will help greatly with the regulation of the schemes generally. I have nothing to say about the clauses, other than that I was so excited by the Minister’s oratory a moment ago that I knocked my glass of water over.
Andrew Bowie
I will respond only to compliment the Opposition Whip, the hon. Member for Coventry North West, on the great job that she did clearing the water up.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 107 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 108 to 113 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 114
Modifications of the gas code
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Amendment 118, in clause 115, page 106, line 23, at end insert—
“(4A) Provision under subsection (4), where a gas transporter is conducting a trial involving a fully alternative grid for the purpose of hydrogen delivery, must include guaranteed installation of other forms of low carbon heating by the gas transporter where a household does not wish to take part in the hydrogen grid conversion trial.”
This amendment seeks to ensure that no household will be forced to take part in the trial and will be given an alternative heating solution by the gas transporter (the DNO).
Clause 115 stand part.
Andrew Bowie
The clause defines what we mean by a hydrogen grid conversion trial and expands the duty of the gas transporter running the trial to participants to undertake work without charge. It also extends certain powers of entry contained in the Gas Act 1986 so that they apply for the trial. That will facilitate the effective and safe delivery of a large village hydrogen heating trial by 2025, which will provide crucial evidence to inform future decisions on the role of hydrogen in heat decarbonisation.
Taking timely strategic decisions on heating is critical to meeting future carbon budgets and the UK’s net zero target. Subsection (1) allows the Secretary of State to designate a hydrogen grid conversion trial and ensures that both clause 114 and clause 115 are narrow in scope and would apply only for the purposes of such a trial. Clause 114 also makes certain modifications to the Gas Act 1986 to build on existing provisions concerning powers of entry. That will ensure that the organisation running the trial has clear grounds to enter private properties to carry out any essential works, including replacing appliances and installing and testing safety valves; undertake inspections and tests for the trial, such as safety checks; and safely disconnect the gas supply in a property.
Gas transporters already have powers of entry into properties through the Gas Act. We are extending those powers in a very limited way to conduct the necessary work to set up and deliver the trial. Gas transporters will use the extended powers only ever as a last resort, once all other attempts to contact property owners and reach an agreement are exhausted. The existing rules on powers of entry requiring the gas transporter to obtain a warrant from a magistrates court will continue to apply. No one in the trial location will be forced to use hydrogen.
The gas transporter delivering the trial will develop an attractive consumer offer for participants, as well as viable alternative options such as electric cookers and heating systems, for consumers who do not wish to or cannot participate in the trial. Finally, I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that most responses to the Department’s 2021 public consultation on facilitating a hydrogen village trial were broadly supportive of our proposals to change the legislation in this way.
Clause 115 focuses on establishing consumer protections for people taking part in this first-of-its-kind hydrogen village trial. It will do so by giving the Secretary of State two delegated powers to make regulations that require the gas transporter running the trial to follow specific processes to engage and inform consumers about the trial and ensure that consumers are protected before, during and after it.
Consumer engagement and support are vital for the successful delivery of the trial. The Department is working closely with the gas transporters as they develop their plans for consumer engagement and protection. Regulations will ensure that the gas transporter running the trial takes the necessary steps to inform consumers about how they will be impacted. That means that people will have the information they need to make an informed choice about whether to connect to hydrogen or accept the alternative offer during the trial. The gas transporter will also need to give adequate notice about the requirement to disconnect properties from natural gas.
The power to introduce regulations for consumer protections will work alongside existing protections such as the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Gas (Standards of Performance) Regulations 2005. I am sure that Members of the Committee will agree that the provisions in clause 115, which were well received by stakeholders when we consulted on them in 2021, are crucial to ensure the fair treatment and protection of people in the trial area. The powers will also allow the Department to set out the enforcement requirements for the regulations, which may include civil penalties but will not create any new criminal offences.
Dr Whitehead
The clause addresses some very important issues with the process of hydrogen trials, which are in fact already under way in a couple of parts of the UK. It relates to the first part of the ambition that the Government set out in the energy security strategy: to have village trials, leading perhaps to town trials later and, by the end of the decade, a city trial. Of course, to some extent that is subject to what may be decided in 2026 about whether hydrogen will go into heating systems in general. Even if the decision ends up as a negative and the Government decide not to universalise hydrogen for heating at that stage, the trials will of course be necessary should there be circumstances in which hydrogen can be used on a grid-isolated basis for heating in particular places, and it will be necessary to have the appliances and equipment capable of taking that hydrogen. The Minister will be aware that a number of boiler companies are already producing hydrogen-ready boilers and the like, some which are being used in the village trials.
There are two village trials under way at the moment: one in Ellesmere Port and one in Redcar. Interestingly, public appreciation of those trials is markedly different. One is trying to get everybody on board straight away. In the other, the company running the trial has taken a different approach to universal involvement. We might think that all the properties in a particular area need to be in the trial for it to be entirely valid, but that is not necessarily the case. One company is intending, at rather a late stage of the trial, to introduce a separate hydrogen main into the area. The other trial company is trying to get people on board without modifying the main and will use what was the gas main for carrying the hydrogen. That creates a considerable issue for participation in the trial.
The Minister said that no one would be forced to take part in trials, but at the same time spoke about enhanced powers of entry and various other things, which suggests that the powers could be used to force everyone to take part. That is what amendment 118 is concerned with. It states:
“where a gas transporter is conducting a trial involving a fully alternative grid for the purpose of hydrogen delivery”.
If we wish to adhere to the principle that not everybody has to take part in a trial—there might be many good reasons why people do not want to do so—there must be guaranteed arrangements for the installation of other forms of low carbon heating or indeed for no low carbon heating at all if an alternative main is put in place for people who do not wish to take part in grid conversion trials. Under subsection (4), the amendment would require companies undertaking trials to guarantee the installation of other forms of low-carbon heating, such as heat pumps or low-carbon gas heating. That would enable the trials to bring valid results, and give people in those areas the ability not to take part if they do not wish to do so.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Nokes. I rise to support the amendment, because this is a fundamental issue. The Minister talked about households only, but will the offer that he outlined be available to businesses? That is important, because businesses have different energy needs, even in residential areas.
It is important that we take people with us. They must have the option to say no to such trials and get low-carbon heating by another means. That is all I wanted to say on the amendment.
Alan Brown
There is another hydrogen trial ongoing—the H100 project in Fife, which is the world’s first trial of green hydrogen for heating and hot water. Like the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, I hope that that experiment is successful.
That trial in Fife highlights the issues that we are debating today. Will the Minister update the Committee on the number of properties signed up to H100? Investigative journalists have reported that the £1,000 sign-up offer was not enough of an inducement to make households sign up. That is the conundrum: it is fine to say that there will be a financial incentive or a consumer offer—the Minister says that we will never need to resort to using the powers in these clauses—but it is clear that some people are reluctant to sign up. If the financial inducement is not enough, how will the Government and the gas operators take those people with them and get this over the finishing line?
It is absolute critical that we take people with us. It is critical that consumers understand the offer they are getting, the risk and the way that the hydrogen trials are being undertaken. It is important that there is transparency in the reporting of the trials. In particular, we need to understand how risks and leakages will be reported. The worst thing that can happen is for rumours or wrong perceptions to circulate.
Amendment 118 is intended to give people an alternative to being part of a hydrogen trial. I support that principle, but that still leaves us with the dilemma of what happens if a household says, “I don’t want to be part of a hydrogen trial and, by the way, you can forget these heat pump things. I am quite happy with my methane gas, thank you very much.” What would happen in that circumstance?
That brings me to the Minister’s argument on Second Reading that the powers will not be used to either force people into the hydrogen trial or leave them disconnected from the gas network. What happens if not enough people are signing up? Frankly, the Government will then have a dilemma. If they want to facilitate these hydrogen trials, they need enough people on the hydrogen network, otherwise the trials will not be sufficient to get an understanding of, or see, the proper operation and benefits of hydrogen.
What will the Government do if not enough people are signing up? How will they facilitate people signing up without forcing them, and how will they get these powers to be successful in terms of mass criticality? There is the old phrase, “You can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs.” It might well be that the Government are going to upset some people, but they will have to be honest about it. Just saying, “There is no way we will use the powers in the Bill” might be unintentionally disingenuous. I am curious what the Minister’s thoughts are. It is fine to say that the Government will not use them, but that remains to be seen.
Andrew Bowie
I thank hon. Members for their comments. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun is absolutely right that there is a third village trial, which has not been referenced this morning. That is, of course, the H100 trial in the kingdom of Fife. I will endeavour to get an answer to him on how many households have chosen to take part in that. I do not have the figure to hand, but I will write to him with an updated number.
On the other two trials, final decisions have yet to be made on the locations, and details of the exact processes are a matter for the companies and operators engaging in the trial. I thank the hon. Member for Southampton, Test for his amendment. It is very important that we discuss the issues he raised. We have always been very clear that nobody will be forced to use hydrogen, and alternative heating solutions and appliances such as electric heating systems and cookers will be offered for those who do not take part in the trial. As my noble Friend Lord Callanan confirmed in the other place, all consumers in the trial location will have the right to decide whether they use hydrogen or an alternative heating solution for the duration of the trial.
The requirement was clearly established in a joint letter from the then Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Ofgem to the gas transporters, which set out the requirements that will have to be met before any funding is provided to the next stages of the trial. It is on the shoulders of the operator to prove that they have community consent to proceed with the trial in a given location. This is a fundamental requirement for the trial. The gas transporters need to demonstrate that they have a viable plan for providing alternatives, otherwise His Majesty’s Government will not proceed with the trial proposal. This obligation will also form part of any future funding agreement.
Alan Brown
I think that goes to the heart of what I was getting at. The Minister is saying that the Government will not proceed if not enough people sign up and give consent to the gas network companies. Are the Government basically saying that people effectively get their own referendum or mandate to decide whether the Government’s trials on hydrogen go ahead? It seems to me that it is fundamental to Government policy to test this out, but they are actually saying that by default citizens will decide whether the trials are going ahead or not. That could completely derail Government policy.
Andrew Bowie
I hasten to suggest that what we are doing through this Bill is legislating to facilitate for the operation of those trials within the United Kingdom. The merits of such trials and the procedures through which operators convince or make the case for those trials going ahead will be a debate following our establishment of the frameworks through which we would like to see the trials develop. That is what we are debating through the Bill today.
I would like to say again that there is already an effective way to ensure that the networks provide an alternative to hydrogen. As such, we do not believe that adding to the Bill is necessary for the success of any of the trials. I fully appreciate the intention of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test to ensure that the trials are conducted properly, with alternative systems offered to those who take part.
I realise that I have not answered the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam’s question; the same offer will be made to businesses as households. Businesses will be protected in the same way as individual households are as a result of how we have drafted the Bill. I hope hon. Members are reassured that there are already steps in place to ensure that everybody is protected and that there is a choice. I hope the hon. Member for Southampton, Test will find it within himself not to press his amendment to a vote.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 114 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 115
Regulations for protection of consumers
The Chair
I would like to check with Dr Whitehead whether he wishes to move his amendment formally?
Dr Whitehead
I would like to move the amendment formally and explain briefly why the Opposition would like the amendment.
The Chair
The debate has already taken place. It is down to you, Dr Whitehead, to move the amendment formally.
Amendment proposed: 118, in clause 115, page 106, line 23, at end insert—
“(4A) Provision under subsection (4), where a gas transporter is conducting a trial involving a fully alternative grid for the purpose of hydrogen delivery, must include guaranteed installation of other forms of low carbon heating by the gas transporter where a household does not wish to take part in the hydrogen grid conversion trial.”—(Dr Whitehead.)
This amendment seeks to ensure that no household will be forced to take part in the trial and will be given an alternative heating solution by the gas transporter (the DNO).
The Chair
In accordance with precedent, I give my vote to the Noes.
Question accordingly negatived.
Clause 115 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 116
Fusion energy facilities: nuclear site licence not required
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 51— Fusion energy facilities: nuclear site licensing—
“The Secretary of State must consult on and establish a revised nuclear site licence regime for fusion energy which will not be subject to the full range of safeguards associated with the use of fissionable materials but must have regard to the residual radioactivity of the proceeds of fusion activity.”
Andrew Bowie
Clause 116 clarifies the regulatory framework for fusion energy facilities by explicitly excluding them from nuclear site licensing requirements. That will provide certainty for the public, regulators, and fusion developers and investors. We are acting now to deliver on the Government’s fusion strategy, which was published last year and set out how the UK aims to commercialise fusion energy, which could provide a source of low carbon, safe, secure and effectively unlimited energy.
The UK is widely recognised as a world leader in the most promising fusion technologies. For example, the UK’s ambitious spherical tokamak for energy production programme—STEP— aims to develop and build a fusion prototype powerplant in the UK by 2040. That is only 17 years away. We announced in October 2022 that the site for STEP would be at West Burton in Nottinghamshire, which will help to bring high-skilled jobs and investment to that region.
Experimental fusion facilities currently operating in the UK are regulated under a framework that is separate from the nuclear site licensing regime. Under that framework, the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive have, since 1983, successfully regulated the Joint European Torus, which is currently the most powerful operational fusion device in the world. It is run by the UK Atomic Energy Authority in Oxfordshire, which I have had the pleasure of visiting.
Following consideration of the responses from last year’s consultation on fusion regulation, the Government have decided that this framework would provide proportionate and appropriate regulation of future fusion energy facilities. It is a position supported by the current regulators. Clause 116 makes the UK the first country in the world to legislate for fusion energy. It will enable the sector to plan with confidence, based on a regulatory framework that will continue to maintain public and environmental safety, helping to encourage investment and accelerating the commercialisation of fusion energy.
Dr Whitehead
This is a bit of a stand-alone clause, in as much as it seeks to separate fusion energy from fission energy in terms of its future regulation. As the Minister set out, it is a pretty negative clause, in as much as it appears to suggest that fusion energy is equivalent to worrying about regulation for a warehouse or a general industrial site, as opposed to what is, in the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, a very systematic programme of regulation and care taken for the installation of nuclear plants.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
This summer, along with colleagues on the Science and Technology Committee, I had the opportunity to visit the Torus at Oxford—a particularly impressive site—and to hear from not only academic scientists but private businesses, and they were calling for this measure. Having seen as a little girl, and worked in, the nuclear fission industry in Sellafield, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that these are two completely separate processes. The stripping of electrons to produce a plasma—while nuclear, in that it is engaging with nuclear atoms in the centre—is not the same as splitting large amounts of, say, uranium and creating by-products that could be injurious to human health and require an enormous amount of regulation, such as alpha and beta radiation. Does he agree that it is possible that in seeking to be mega safe, we risk choking off an energy source that could be the answer for all our futures, and one in which Britain is genuinely recognised as a global leader?
Dr Whitehead
The hon. Member is right that the processes are quite different—I was about to put forward a few reflections on that—but they are not completely unconnected. As she mentioned, fusion is essentially about containing a very high-temperature process of the fusion of molecules into other molecules—
Dr Whitehead
Into a plasma within a contained vessel. The processes of producing that plasma for the purposes of electricity generation are indeed very different from producing steam, effectively, for electricity generation through the decay of radioactive isotopes within a controlled reactor. However, what happens when that plasma is produced is that a very large amount of neutrons are released, which bombard the sides of the vessels within which the whole process is contained so that, over a period of time, the atomic structure of those vessels starts to change and there is considerable radioactivity contained within the vessels, which, when the site is decommissioned, would have to be taken down and probably stored in a repository in the long term because of its enduring radioactivity. The hon. Member is also right to say that the life of the radioactivity that is produced in the plasma process is a question of, among other things, tritium.
Katherine Fletcher
Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that an individual neutron is a body that can further emit a radioactive source? That cannot be true. Radioactivity, by its nature, is the smaller bits that come as a co-product. While I accept that there is a need to make sure that any industry is responsible and can look after itself, it is about making sure that the industry is being properly regulated, but perhaps not regulated as a fission nuclear site. I am sure he will agree that although the containment vessel is important in the process, it is actually about the generation of the electromagnetic fields that contain the plasma, which is the subject of much research at the moment and would prevent the problem he is describing—of neutron leaking into both the concrete and steel containers. Will he clarify that point? A neutron, in itself, can only decay into quarks. That is what the clever guys at CERN do when they smash things together at speed.
Dr Whitehead
The hon. Member is of course right to say that neutrons, in their own right, cannot produce radioactivity, but that is not what I was saying. What I was saying is that the process by which neutrons are released to bombard the vessel in which the process is contained indirectly produces radioactivity through changes in the structure of that outer casing. Perhaps I can inform the Committee briefly by setting out the description in a recent note from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which says:
“To produce usable heat, the neutron streams carrying 80 percent of the energy from deuterium-tritium fusion must be decelerated and cooled by the reactor structure, its surrounding lithium-containing blanket, and the coolant. The neutron radiation damage in the solid vessel wall is expected to be worse than in fission reactors because of the higher neutron energies. Fusion neutrons knock atoms out of their usual lattice positions, causing swelling and fracturing of the structure. Also, neutron-induced reactions generate large amounts of interstitial helium and hydrogen, forming gas pockets that lead to additional swelling, embrittlement, and fatigue. These phenomena put the integrity of the reaction vessel in peril.”
I think the hon. Member will be clear from that that it is not the neutrons that are the issue; it is the radiation.
The Chair
Both your previous interventions have been quite long. Perhaps you might consider making a full contribution when Dr Whitehead has come to the end of his remarks.
Dr Whitehead
I hope we have established that it is not the case that fusion activity is much more advantageous than fission from a safety and waste point of view. It is not, in itself, radioactive neutral. Additionally, the process produces a relatively small amount of tritium—much more of which is produced in fission reactors—which clings to the vessels and can get into the waste stream and produce radioactive water. Although that is not a big concern, it certainly needs to be taken into account as far as safety features of the overall plants are concerned. The case that I am trying to make is that, though it is important to progress with fusion—which is a much safer and, as the Minister said, potentially much more abundant source of energy—we should not be blind to its side effects.
As I have described, the side effects are not just about the problem of the potential embrittlement of the casing and the need to treat that casing in due course, the need to stop tritium release through lithium blankets around the sphere core and the difficulty of making those blankets completely sealable. All those things suggest that the sorts of actions in the nuclear installation regulations and the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 are rather more pertinent than we might have thought, than the Minister suggested or than the clause seems to provide. I suggest a modest revision of the clause so that, instead of dismissing the safety concerns about and operational arrangements for fusion, it brings forward a revised, and perhaps acceptably less rigorous, process that nevertheless falls within overall nuclear guidelines for fusion activities.
In any debate on fusion, it has always been said that fusion is a very bright future for us but that it is 40 years away. Well, it is not 40 years away now; it is much closer to being realised. As the Minister said, in the UK, spherical tokamak for energy production is potentially producing good results, so we could be a few years away from having to get this regime right, and it is right that we do so now. Our new clause 51, which—for the guidance of those who have given up going through all the amendments and new clauses in the amendment paper—is to be found right at the back on page 58, states:
“The Secretary of State must consult on and establish a revised nuclear site licence regime for fusion energy which will not be subject to the full range of safeguards associated with the use of fissionable materials but must have regard to the residual radioactivity of the proceeds of fusion activity.”
That is a sensible alternative that will not, or should not, in any way impede the development of fusion, but will provide a clear understanding as to what we are dealing with as far as fusion is concerned. It would be a programme of appropriate and proportionate safeguards—yes, associated with nuclear safeguards in the background—that makes clear the very different circumstances under which fusion works. That would be helpful.
Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I am listening carefully to the debate that is unfolding. We appear to be heading towards a binary position—fulfilling all the requirements under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 or effectively removing all the requirements as the fusion process comes in. Does my hon. Friend agree that actually the balance of risk is not binary in that way—that fusion can activate the walls of the plasma vessel as he has set out and that therefore, although we all agree that we should seek to step down some of the licensing requirements, it would indeed be prudent to have some process, subject to broader restrictions around nuclear, that would place us within the realms of acting in a way that is “better safe than sorry”?
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend has put forward very well a potential problem that we are moving towards here—a problem that the new clause, which I am sure he will support, is designed to get us out of. This is a specific solution to the potentially binary nature of the debate. It is to accept that some safeguards are necessary, that there is some radioactivity, that it is not of the same nature or extent as under fissionable arrangements and that it is not necessary to put in place all the same safeguards as for fissionable activity, as if fusion were just a subset of fissionable activity. I recognise that that is not the case and that the safety regime need not be the same as for everything related to fissionable activity.
This morning, I heard the Minister say that the Government are perhaps thinking about some form of regulation that would go beyond what appears to be the negative nature of this particular proposal, but at the moment I cannot see any moves in that direction. The new clause would, I think, give us the best of both worlds. It would allow us to proceed with fusion activity with safety clearly uppermost in our minds, but we would not be impeding the process by the way we regulated. We would all want this to happen. It is a proper arrangement as far as safety is concerned, and would enable proper progress as far as fusion is concerned.
Once again, if the Minister is not more forthcoming in moving away from the position of this particular new clause, we may want to divide on it: it is an important principle that we should get regulation right, from the start of the fusion process. I agree with the Minister that it could mean an exciting future, but it needs to have the proper safeguards in place for it to work in all our interests in the years to come.
Katherine Fletcher
Thank you, Ms Nokes, and I apologise for not prosecuting my arguments procedurally in the correct way earlier. I want to respond to what the hon. Member for Southampton, Test has said. I completely accept that he has tabled his new clause in the spirit of public safety, but I do think that this is an area that could be better understood by the public. I gently suggest to him that there might be a slight misapprehension in some of the material that he just quoted from.
What the hon. Gentleman was describing was neutrons degrading a physical structure, as a by-product of the plasma. There is an analogy here: it is almost like it getting shot at or water going through a concrete structure and then causing rust and degrading the steel within it. That is not necessarily the creation of a nuclear radioactive source; that is something being peppered with neutrons. And that is why it is not a commercially viable facility at the moment—because there are still things to be worked out, not least how we ensure that we do not build a very expensive thing that, by its own nature, then degrades over time and use. But that is not the same as creating a radioactive source.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned deuterium and tritium, which are different types of naturally occurring hydrogen elements. Tritium sounds, to my ear, almost like something that the Terminator would be using to do something particularly exciting. In fact, it is only a hydrogen that occurs in nature and that has a single proton and two neutrons within the nucleus, so it is a bit bigger and heavier than is typical. What that means is that it is a little more unstable. The natural half-life of tritium is 12 years, whereas the nuclear regulations that the hon. Gentleman seeks to apply or partially apply in this instance are designed to deal with things that have half-lives of thousands of years. Someone will tell me that I have this wrong, but with uranium-238 we are talking about very different orders of magnitude—
Olivia Blake
I am a biomedical scientist by background, so I come to this with a medical perspective. The issue with tritium is that it produces beta waves, which are a more damaging form of radiation to human tissues—only in a minor way, as it has a score of 1 compared with 20 for alpha waves, but there is an underlying risk. Exposure of the workforce to that level continuously could put DNA stability at risk, because it is an ionising form of radiation. If there is a problem—containment is always a big challenge that gets raised by scientists—hopefully we will overcome it, but it is right to have the protections, particularly for the workforce. That is why I welcome new clause 51.
Katherine Fletcher
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. Of course beta radiation is produced when a nucleus is separated, when the neutrons in tritium move away. For me, it is a question of proportionality and risk. At the moment, there is no viable commercial solution, so there is not a workforce but a research community, which is publicly and privately funded. On that becoming a workforce solution, I agree with her that ensuring that people are safe at work is vital but, should this come about, the Health and Safety Executive will not leave it unmonitored. However, new clause 51 is not about workplace safety; it is about putting something that is fundamentally not nuclear fission, as opposed to nuclear fusion, into a set of regulations designed to deal with such things.
I wondered about the criteria, given that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam mentioned radioactivity occurring in the fusion environment. What percentage of Cornwall, with its radon gas, might be caught up in the thresholds? I will be interested to pursue on Report what we are actually talking about. As a scientist, the hon. Lady knows that 100 is very different from 1, even though 1 poses some risk.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test for tabling the new clause, but given the opportunity for clean, net zero energy—which really could be the panacea for the world, as tree-huggers like me would say—in the UK we should look to tread lightly, but carefully, with any regulation of an industry that has such a level of potential and to which the UK has contributed so much already. He mentioned torus structures, but those are only one of a series of different potential generational tools—torus might be the research tool, not the commercial tool, so his concerns could disappear with a completely different production facility, perhaps based on electromagnetic rather than physical containment.
With regret, because I understand the genuine and heartfelt nature of the hon. Gentleman’s new clause, I think it is important that we do not stifle a nascent industry with regulation. I will therefore support the Government’s position.
Andrew Bowie
I thank my hon. Friend and Opposition Members for a fascinating discussion of the clause and new clause 51, and of how we proceed with regulation of this nascent industry—a technology in which we are leading the world, as has been said multiple times. Such comments have also been made in various legislatures around the world, including the US Senate, in which a wish was recently expressed to match the progress being made in the United Kingdom and to have a framework such as the one in which we have allowed fusion technology to be developed.
The Government’s plans are about working up from the frameworks that apply to existing fusion sites, rather than working down from them. We believe that the new clause could stifle the development of the technology that we have been exploring in depth this morning. It is vital to stress that we are not—definitely not—trying to make fusion energy facilities avoid licensing requirements. Nor are we seeking to water down any regulations. For a fusion energy facility to be developed and operated in a lawful way, it must go through permitting and consenting processes governed by the relevant regulators. In England, those are the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive. This is consistent with how other facilities with radioactive materials such as cyclotrons and large-scale industrial irradiators are regulated for at the moment.
The regulatory process that we have right now requires fusion energy facilities to go through various approval stages as well as ongoing compliance and engagement. The requirements associated with those regulatory obligations are proportionate to the hazard associated with the fusion energy facility. I should also say the legislative consent motion procedure has been invoked. We have already consulted the Scottish Government on the procedure and they raised no concerns; obviously, there are separate regulations and bodies responsible for the issue in Scotland.
We do not believe that fusion energy facilities should require nuclear site licences. That is what we are discussing this morning. They should not go through the process requiring nuclear site licences because, following consultation, we believe that that would be disproportionate to the hazards associated with fusion. Such hazards, as various hon. Members have explained in greater detail than I would ever be able to, are significantly lower than with nuclear fission, and the regulatory frameworks required for fission would therefore be too burdensome for the technology.
The Government agreed with the majority of the consultation respondents that the existing regulatory processes of consenting and permitting would be proportionate and appropriate for fusion energy facilities. That was all set out in a full consultation that preceded the introduction of the Bill. We see no need to consult again on the same issue at this time. I hope I have been able to set the minds of the hon. Member for Southampton Test and others at rest following their justifiable, reasonable and well thought through questions on this matter. I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Chair
The new clause has been debated, but we will not be taking a decision on it at this point.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 116 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 117
Treatment of recycled carbon fuel and nuclear-derived fuel as renewable transport fuel
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Bowie
Transport is the largest emitting sector of greenhouse gas emissions, producing 26% of the UK’s total emissions in 2021. Low carbon alternatives to traditional fuels such as petrol and diesel will play an important role in our energy transition. The renewable transport fuel obligation and the forthcoming sustainable aviation fuel mandate supports our policy on decarbonising transport by encouraging the production and use of renewable fuels that do not damage the environment.
Clause 117 will enable two types of low carbon to be treated as though they were renewable for the sole purpose of those schemes, helping the UK to further decarbonise transport. The two low carbon fuels are recycled carbon fuels, produced from otherwise unrecyclable waste plastics or industrial waste gases that cannot be avoided, reused, or recycled, and fuels derived from nuclear energy.
Currently, powers under the Energy Act 2004 only permit renewable fuels to be supported. The clause has been carefully drafted so that it does not classify recycled carbon fuels and nuclear-derived fuels as renewable fuels, ensuring these fuels are treated as though they were renewable for the sole purpose of part 2, chapter 5 of the Energy Act 2004. That allows schemes such as the renewable transport fuel obligation and forthcoming sustainable aviation fuel mandate to support the use of those types of fuels. It does not grant them wider consideration as renewable fuels.
Both fuel types have the potential to deliver significant carbon savings over traditional fossil fuels and are a vital replacement for difficult-to-decarbonise sectors such as commercial aviation and heavy goods vehicles.
Dr Whitehead
I have nothing to say on the clause, but I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam does.
Olivia Blake
I have a few concerns about clause 117, which would, as the Minister outlined, allow fossil fuel waste to be reclassified as renewable energy in the form of fuels for policies including the proposed sustainable aviation fuel mandate, which is currently being consulted on by the Department for Transport. It seems the Department would like to be able to include recycled carbon fuels, including unrecyclable plastic, as eligible fuels under the sustainable aviation fuel mandate. That is why the Bill will permit recycled carbon fuel to be treated as renewable, to help us to meet our sustainability targets.
Andrew Bowie
I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam for her questions. As well thought through and well meaning as they are, the renewable transport fuel obligation already requires that fuels meet strict eligibility criteria to ensure that they are sustainable and provide minimum greenhouse gas savings compared with traditional fossil fuels such as petrol or diesel. In respect to recycled carbon fuels, we are currently consulting on a detailed methodology to ensure that the emissions associated with their production and use are correctly quantified. Using nuclear energy to produce hydrogen, for example, has very low operational and full life cycle carbon intensity, with no indirect land use impacts.
The hon. Lady also asked about the potential that this may, by accident, incentivise or perpetuate the creation of plastic waste or industrial processes that generate waste gases. Recycled carbon fuels are fuels produced from fossil waste that cannot be avoided, reused or recycled, and have the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions relative to petrol or diesel. I know that she understands that.
In line with the principles of the waste hierarchy, our recent consultation on introducing recycled carbon fuels into the renewable transport fuel obligation set out eligibility criteria to ensure that recycled carbon fuels would not be produced from recyclable material. Other schemes, such as the sustainable aviation fuel mandate, will have similar criteria to ensure that the production of waste is not incentivised by this. For solid recycled carbon fuels to be eligible for support, suppliers must be able to demonstrate that the waste is derived from facilities that have adequate separation processes to remove recyclable plastics. We believe that converting non-recyclable waste plastic into recycled carbon fuels can achieve a greater energy recovery than disposing of the waste via conventional means. I hope that answers the hon. Lady’s concerns.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 117 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 118
Climate Change Act 2008: meaning of “UK removals”
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Bowie
This is a very short clause. The purpose of the clause is to enable engineered removals of greenhouse gas emissions to count towards our carbon budgets by amending the definition of UK removals in the Climate Change Act 2008. This amendment follows a direct recommendation from the Climate Change Committee in their sixth carbon budget report on greenhouse gas removals. In the net zero strategy, we set the ambition of deploying at least 5 million tonnes of CO2 per year of engineered removals, such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage and direct air carbon capture and storage, by 2030, in line with assessments made by the Climate Change Committee and the National Infrastructure Commission. This amendment provides for these removals to be included in the calculation of carbon budgets.
Dr Whitehead
This is another stand-alone clause. We have discussed the question of DACCS and other forms of mechanical greenhouse gas removal before, and our consensus of understanding was that potentially this could be quite an important element of carbon removal in the future. It is therefore important that it is included in definitions and calculations, and we certainly support the change to achieve that outcome.
Alan Brown
I will be quick. I am quite happy to support the clause. Bill Gates said just the other day that the technology has moved much quicker than even he believed. The Minister will be well aware that one of the possible technologies that will be deployed in the Scottish cluster is direct air capture. With this clause and the Bill coming through, it makes it even more imperative that the Scottish cluster is given the support it needs and the track 2 timeframe is confirmed, so that we can get the legislation in place and deliver the carbon savings that the Government want to see.
Andrew Bowie
I do not disagree. As the hon. Member knows, I am a passionate advocate of carbon capture, utilisation and storage and the clusters emerging across the United Kingdom. As I know he supports and champions, we have already spent over £40 million supporting the Scottish cluster as a UK Government.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 118 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 119
The Independent System Operator and Planner (“the ISOP”)
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 95, in clause 119, page 108, line 34, at end insert
“including the oversight of efficiency and loss reduction in cabling”.
This amendment would give the Independent System Operator oversight of cabling efficiency and loss reduction in cabling.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 96, in clause 119, page 109, line 3, at end insert
“and of distribution systems in conjunction with licenced distribution system operators”.
This amendment would include certain distribution systems in the functions of the ISOP.
Amendment 97, in clause 119, page 109, line 5, at end insert
“and of distribution systems in conjunction with licensed distribution system operators”.
This amendment would include certain distribution systems in the functions of the ISOP.
Clause stand part.
Clause 120 stand part.
New clause 37—Assurance of independence of system and distribution operators—
“(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a supervisory and advisory board of at least eight suitably qualified independent energy figures to assist the person designated as the ISOP under section 120.
(2) The purpose of the board appointed under subsection (1) is to assure the independence of transmission and distribution system operators through independent oversight of and advice to the ISOP.
(3) Energy UK and the Energy Networks Association must be consulted on the appointment of the board under subsection (1).
(4) The Secretary of State may make provision of financial assistance to enable the board to carry out its functions.”
This new clause aims to ensure the independence of system and distribution operators.
Dr Whitehead
We come to a section of the Bill that I heartily approve of. I have long championed the idea that we set up an independent system operator in this country. It is really important in our next phase and where we go in renewing our infrastructure, and ensuring there are delivery mechanisms to cope with the renewable energy that we hope will be the mainstay of our carbon production. It is important not only that those systems are in place, but that they are in place as soon as possible. There will be discussions in this section about the best way of ensuring that the ISOP is set up in such a way that it can perform that function.
As the Minister will know, the independent system operator has been in gestation for a while, in terms of the separating of National Grid ESO from the National Grid itself. National Grid ESO now performs something of the function I have started to describe, but without the remit to do so. What we need over the next period is not just National Grid ESO, nor something with a different name from National Grid ESO, but something that is much closer to a system architect in upgrading our systems for renewable purposes. That is how I see the development of the ISOP. It is important that in our first go at what the ISOP does, as it were, we get the best combination of things it is responsible for and that we get right its ISOP set-up.
In the development of the grid so far, certainly as far as renewable energy connections are concerned, there is no real distinction between the high-level grid, which was the historic purview of National Grid and ISOP, and the lower-level grid, which is still pretty powerful but is in the hands of the distributed network organisations. Sometimes a false distinction is made between what is happening at National Grid level and what is happening at a more regional or local level. There is no real distinction now, because renewable sources, in particular, are seeking to substantially connect to 123 kV cables to a far greater extent than they are seeking to connect to high-level grid 440 kV cables. Consequently, some of the biggest backlogs in connection dates are not just in the high-level grid.
The Minister will be aware—we have discussed this previously in the House—that a number of large wind farms are getting connection dates to bring ashore and distribute the electricity they are producing not just a few years away, but in 2036. As I have mentioned previously in the House, that is one year away from when the Government have indicated they wish to see a predominantly renewable energy system in place. We may well have the tools to have the low-carbon energy system in place, but if we cannot deliver the electricity from those tools to anybody, we do not have a low-carbon energy system in place in the end. It is important that we get the system properly in place, so that it can deliver the connections and the offshore re-cabling. That way we will have a decent grid highway with anticipatory investment.
Alan Brown
On the hon. Member’s comments about offshore green infrastructure, does he share my concern that offshore developers in Scotland are now being told that they need to connect to the grid in Blyth because the connections are not available in Scotland? It just seems counterproductive and clearly adds additional costs to these projects.
Dr Whitehead
Indeed. The hon. Member makes an important point about where we connect and the facilities for connection, which I will consider briefly in a moment. This is also a substantial problem with DNOs, as we know from published data on local junction boxes and various other things. How long a local or a regional connection will take is determined by whether the system is red, yellow or green in terms of its local connections within the DNO network. We are seeing similar waiting times for smaller connections and the sort of large offshore connections that the hon. Member mentioned. Obviously, that is difficult in helping to ensure that onshore electricity is delivered as well as offshore electricity. That is one reason why the distinction between the high-level grid and the lower-level grid in the circumstances of our renewable, low-carbon future is not as great as has hitherto been the case.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun rightly draws attention to the fact that some Scottish-based offshore schemes are now being asked, on a point-to-point basis, to connect south of the border, because the facilities for delivering from those connections, were they to be north of the border, are not as good as they should be. Interestingly, the Government are presently considering a bizarre series of arrangements called marginal cost pricing, which will deter certain people from taking particular views about where they should connect because there will be a price differential in connecting. As I am sure the hon. Member will agree, the solution is not to start messing about with theoretical market considerations about who might connect where, but to build the stuff so that people can connect to it properly, where they are and where they want to be, with a certainty that there will be a connection in a short period of time and that what they have connected to gets to where we want it to be. Those are all reasons why the ISOP will be so important.
Through these amendments we want in no way to undermine, but rather to enhance, the substance of the ISOP. Our amendments, which are on page 5 of the amendment paper, seek to do several things regarding the structure and operation of the ISOP. First, we think that the ISOP should have oversight not just of the cabling itself, but of the cabling efficiency and loss reduction in cabling as it goes around the country. That is a potentially important issue for the future. I am sure that hon. Members know how much electricity is lost just by the transmission function.
Katherine Fletcher
I believe it is about 6% in standard main lines, which presents a huge opportunity for us to be more efficient with the energy we generate and transmit.
Dr Whitehead
The hon. Member is absolutely right. I think the figure is around 6%—sometimes a bit higher—but part of the issue with that loss is not just the general inefficiency of the system; under certain circumstances, we are using cables for transmission that are much less efficient than they should be.
I visited—this shows the exciting things that I do as shadow Energy Minister—a test site of a highly efficient cable system. I will not mention the company’s name, but as far as I know it is pursuing a much more efficient cable system with a number of DNOs. When I got to the site, there was not very much to see because the cable had been buried underground; I was pointed to a field. There was, however, in the corner of the field, a hut in which calculations on how the cable was performing, and how it would perform in conjunction with other forms of cable, were being undertaken. I was able to see for myself an increase in the efficiency of the cable of about 15%, just by having that cable design as opposed to others.
It seems to me quite important that the cabling introduced to our new system be as efficient as possible. It needs to be clear to the companies that will put the closed cables in that that is what will be expected of them. That is why we would like an additional function to be added to the ISOP’s concerns: oversight of efficiency and loss reduction in cabling.
We have tabled other amendments, which concern the relationship with the DNOs. It is important that we do not make an artificial distinction in terms of what we are doing with the ISOP in the high-level system and others. I am afraid that the Bill, whether intentionally or not, appears to create that divide. The DNOs can get on with their activities, and the high-level grid will have a different system of governance and management. That is why amendment 96 would add
“and of distribution systems in conjunction with licenced distribution system operators”
to the end of line 3, in clause 119. Amendment 97 would add the same words. That would create a much better system of co-operation and collaboration between the DNOs and the new system operator.
I appreciate that we will not vote on new clause 37 today. It is important for the independent system operator really to be independent, and not a creature of either the energy companies or the Government, so that it has its own ability to look at the system, to produce recommendations and arrangements, and to oversee the development of the system as its own master within that.
We therefore suggest in new clause 37 that an independent advisory board be set up to ensure the independence of the ISOP. There are other ways of doing this, but we are suggesting one particular way of ensuring that the ISOP operates in the genuinely independent way that we all want it to in pursuit of the future of grids and connections.
I hope that the Minister and the Committee understand that our amendments and new clauses all seek to help with the ISOP. I hope that the Minister will respond positively by saying that there are different ways of achieving what we want to achieve with the ISOP’s powers, or that, although he might not be able to accept the amendments today, he is actively minded to have a good think about them. By the way, I am grateful for the note that the Minister wrote to me last night about the fact that the Government have done just that with one particular amendment to the Bill. That sort of process could easily be followed in such circumstances in future.
Andrew Bowie
Before I expand on the Government’s position and explain why we will not accept new clause 1 or the hon. Gentleman’s amendments, I will acknowledge absolutely that connections and connection timelines are the biggest challenge we face—for electrification to grid, for driving our economy forward in the way we seek to and for reaching our net zero goals. Every single day for the past few months, but in particular this week, I have been engaging with DNOs, transmission operators, Nick Winser who conducted the independent review, Ofgem and the National Grid ESO about what we can do to drive down those timelines. At a critical point, part of that will be the creation of the ISOP. For the benefit of those who might be slightly confused, that is what we refer to outside the Bill as the future system operator—ISOP and the future system operator are one and the same thing.
I will now turn to the question asked by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test about why an advisory board would make ISOP risk-averse and not fully independent. We are concerned that, rather than enhancing independence, the members of such a board would likely hold various energy sector conflicts. That could crystallise in many ways, including resistance to systematic reform, advice to pay compensation to energy sector participants or an incumbent bias that would seek to frustrate new market entrants. Establishing an industry-led advisory board for the ISOP would be similar to establishing one for the Climate Change Committee—it is not required for an organisation that needs to remain independent, such as the Climate Change Committee, which we are using as the basis for how we proceed.
A prime consideration of the ISOP consultation was that the body should be independent from day-to-day Government control and from other energy sector interests. That is why we need to ensure that the ISOP is a trusted and independent voice within the energy sector.
Alan Brown
Again, I am in favour of the ISOP and happy to support that, but will the Minister give us some timescales? How soon after the Bill receives Royal Assent will the ISOP be up and running to authorise the independent operator?
Andrew Bowie
I am happy to answer the hon. Gentleman. The aim and the ambition is for the FSO/ISOP to be up and functioning by the middle of next year.
I turn to amendments 95, 96 and 97, tabled by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test. The Government agree that those are all things that the ISOP needs to bear in mind, but we think that the balance in part 4 would be distorted by calling them out in the high-level illustrative list of the ISOP’s initial functions in the clause.
On amendment 95, matters already of concern to the existing system operator will continue to be a concern to the ISOP, in particular as it seeks to promote system efficiency under clause 121. On amendments 96 and 97, we understand that a closer relationship between the system operator and the distribution system operators—indeed, closer relationship across all energy networks—will allow for better co-ordination and ensure optimal system-wide planning. However, we do not think that such things should be included in the high-level illustrative list of the ISOP’s initial functions. A new collaboration duty is not necessary as that lies at the very heart of our vision for the ISOP. The importance of co-ordination across networks is made clear by clause 121(4)(a) and the whole systems duty in 122(1)(c).
Clause 120 empowers the Secretary of State to designate the ISOP, doing so by granting a power to the Secretary of State to make the first designation of a person as the ISOP and, if needed, to revoke that designation and issue a new one. I commend clauses 119 and 120 to the Committee.
Energy Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting)
Thursday 8th June 2023
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Energy Act 2023 View all Energy Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 8 June 2023 - (8 Jun 2023)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 96, in clause 119, page 109, line 3, at end insert
“and of distribution systems in conjunction with licenced distribution system operators”.
This amendment would include certain distribution systems in the functions of the ISOP.
Amendment 97, in clause 119, page 109, line 5, at end insert
“and of distribution systems in conjunction with licensed distribution system operators”.
This amendment would include certain distribution systems in the functions of the ISOP.
Clause stand part.
Clause 120 stand part.
New clause 37—Assurance of independence of system and distribution operators—
“(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a supervisory and advisory board of at least eight suitably qualified independent energy figures to assist the person designated as the ISOP under section 120.
(2) The purpose of the board appointed under subsection (1) is to assure the independence of transmission and distribution system operators through independent oversight of and advice to the ISOP.
(3) Energy UK and the Energy Networks Association must be consulted on the appointment of the board under subsection (1).
(4) The Secretary of State may make provision of financial assistance to enable the board to carry out its functions.”
This new clause aims to ensure the independence of system and distribution operators.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
We had a good debate, Ms Nokes, on the principles of the independent system operator and planner. From what the Minister said, I detect that we are both pretty broadly in agreement about what we want the ISOP to do and how we want it to exercise its functions. Should Labour get into government, we would be interested in the idea of introducing regional ISOPs, which are the subject of two amendments that are on the amendment paper but were not selected for discussion today. I will not go into that in any depth, because I am sure that you, Ms Nokes, as our esteemed Chair, will rule me entirely out of order.
We have set down where we want the ISOP to go and I hope that the Minister will go along with that. When it is up and running—in perhaps a year and a half, I am pleased to hear—it will be just in time for a new Labour Government to run with the ISOP in a really positive way and to get all those things built in a timely fashion. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 119 and 120 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 121
Duty to promote particular objectives
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Andrew Bowie)
Clause 121 sets out the ISOP’s main objectives—on net zero, security of supply, and efficiency and economy—and introduces the concept of a relevant activity. The conflict in Ukraine, the climate crisis and rising fossil fuel energy costs all underline the serious need to transition and decarbonise our energy system in an efficient and secure manner. The ISOP will play a central role, as we have all agreed so far, in helping us to meet these challenges and fulfil our energy ambitions.
The clause imposes a duty on the ISOP to carry out its functions in a way that it considers will best achieve the three central objectives. It does not give any weighting to any objective relative to any other, so the ISOP will have discretion to make appropriate trade-offs where they conflict. It is worth noting that the ISOP will not be a final decision-making body on policy. Making high-level strategic trade-offs between the objectives will be for Government, but it will be for the ISOP to balance them at an operational level and to advise Government or the regulator on them.
The first of the three objectives is net zero. The ISOP will drive net zero outcomes by proactively identifying and creating opportunities to facilitate the transition through its functions. The second objective is to ensure the security of supply, which refers to the ISOP’s core function of keeping the lights on. It will ensure that electricity and gas supply can meet demand and that they are appropriately resilient, including the consideration of national and cyber-security. The third objective is focused on promoting an efficient, co-ordinated and economical electricity and gas system. That is a continuation of the existing statutory objectives for the network operators and will become increasingly important to ensure that consumer bill payments are kept as low as possible.
Subsection (5) defines “relevant activity”. The definition allows ISOP to consider a wider set of business actors, including those relating to hydrogen and carbon capture, usage and storage, which we fully expect to be important in future.
Clause 122 sets out specific matters to which the ISOP will be required to have regard when carrying out its functions. Those include: the need to facilitate competition; the desirability of facilitating innovation; and the energy system as a whole. Some regulated activities in the energy sector are monopolies. However, the Government’s view is that where competition is possible, it should be introduced and fostered. ISOP will have a duty to think about how to make competition more effective where it exists, and to consider whether it should be introduced where it does not. That will underpin ISOP’s potential role as a tender body for electricity network competition.
It is worth clarifying that in this clause the Government are not referring to “consumer impact” as the need to deliver value for money to consumers. That is addressed by the “efficiency and economy” objective in clause 121. Rather, ISOP will need to have regard to two key matters: first, how consumers are affected, or likely to be affected, by the behaviour of those energy sector businesses engaged in “relevant activities”; and secondly, the impact of consumers’ behaviour on those activities. ISOP is also to be cognisant of the kinds of products and services that consumers want, and the effects of consumer behaviour on products, services and the markets in which they operate.
The intent of the duty relating to the whole-system impact is to enable ISOP to take a more joined-up approach across the whole energy system, including electricity, gas—onshore and offshore—and other emerging markets. On the innovation duty, the intention is for ISOP to be alive to the possibilities of new and better ways of doing things. Examples could include working with industry on the improved collection and use of data and various digital technologies to improve consumer experience and outcomes.
Finally, clause 123 imposes a duty on ISOP to have regard to the strategy and policy statement defined in part 5 of the Energy Act 2013. This duty helps to clarify the link between ISOP and the Government’s energy priorities. The intention is that ISOP will act independently, but in the context of wider energy sector policy and the Government’s objectives. The Government will use the SPS, once designated, as a tool to provide strategic focus to ISOP and ensure that it, and Ofgem, are aligned with the strategic priorities of the Government’s energy policy.
Clause 123 also imposes a requirement on ISOP to notify the Secretary of State if at any point it thinks that a policy outcome in the SPS will not be met. The notice must include the reasons behind the conclusion and any steps that ISOP will or might take to deliver the policy outcome. The Secretary of State also has an obligation to consult the ISOP when reviewing or preparing the SPS. The SPS is expected to set out a number of priorities for both Ofgem and ISOP, and it is not anticipated to fundamentally change the organisation. I commend clause 121 to the Committee.
Dr Whitehead
This debate enables us to count off a few clauses—clauses that are all good stuff. They clarify and facilitate the role, function and activity of ISOP. We have indicated that we would like ISOP’s remit to be widened as far as possible. On the high-level objectives in clause 121, an objective on net zero could shape the widening of ISOP’s responsibilities, because obviously that is what we are all about now, as far as the grid and various other things are considered. A wider remit for ISOP in facilitating net zero is clearly to be desired; that may be a basis on which to build on ISOP’s powers and activities in future.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
As I said earlier, I support the principle behind ISOP, and I support clauses 121 to 123, and will not vote against them. I want to explore a point with the Minister. The explanatory notes on the clauses highlight possible conflicts and tensions between the role of ISOP and the impact of Government policy—of what the Government do. For example, paragraph 345 of the explanatory notes outlines that there is
“a duty on the ISOP to carry out its functions in a way that it considers is best calculated to promote…net zero”.
It also acknowledges that while ISOP is not making decisions on generation mixes, it should still be
“proactively identifying and creating opportunities to facilitate the transition”
to net zero.
Paragraph 347 to the explanatory notes confirms the imposition of a duty on ISOP
“to carry out its functions in a way that it considers best calculated to promote a coordinated electricity and gas”
grid in the interests of the efficiency and economic operation of the grid. Paragraph 352 says:
“The ISOP will take a whole-system approach to coordinating and planning Great Britain’s energy system”.
That is all very logical, and I agree with the principles set out there—they are certainly the most important functions of ISOP in many ways—but how does the Government regulator allow for that, and how do the Government take into account the ISOP’s recommendations?
The Minister rightly pointed out the differences between what the ISOP is looking at and the fact that policy and implementation is the role of Government. To give an example, the National Grid Electricity System Operator already predicts that there will be less nuclear in the grid in any future scenarios compared with what the Government are promising about new nuclear, and that in 2024-25 a quarter of electricity generation will be from nuclear. The reality is that that will not happen. The National Grid ESO does not allow for that in future scenarios, yet the Government still tell us that that is their policy. That is already a clear conflict before the ISOP is up and running.
What if the ISOP says to the Government that instead of spending £35 billion to £40 billion on a new nuclear station at Sizewell C it could much better balance the system by recommending extra energy efficiency measures, battery storage, pumped-storage hydro or a smarter grid, which we keep hearing about in the plan going forward? What if the ISOP says that we should upgrade the grid urgently between Scotland and England, which would help to better balance the system and deploy renewables better, and get rid of the £4.6 billion in constraint payments that National Grid ESO paid last year to turn windfarms off because there was not sufficient grid capacity? How do the Government deal with the recommendations of the ISOP? Some of the suggestions that I have outlined would meet the aims outlined in clauses 121 and 122 and in the explanatory notes.
We are still to come to clause 131, but in this context it puts a duty on the ISOP to monitor and review developments, including technological changes and Government policies. It seems to me that the Government can make policies that undermine the ISOP’s recommendations; then the ISOP has the responsibility to review Government policy and start all over again. That does not seem very efficient, so the Minister needs to give a bit more clarity on that.
Clause 123 is on the strategy and policy statement, which is long overdue from the Government. On 30 March, in answer to a written question that I submitted, I was advised:
“The Government has consulted Scottish and Welsh Ministers on a draft SPS and taken their comments into account. The Government intends to publicly consult on an updated draft soon.”
When will we get that draft, given that clause 123 reiterates the responsibility of the Government to provide that strategy and policy statement?
Andrew Bowie
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. There is not a conflict of interest between the ISOP and Government policy. The ISOP will not be solely, or even primarily, responsible for delivering net zero. That is the responsibility of the Secretary of State and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero—or any future iteration of it. Delivering on the net zero targets will require a comprehensive approach across a range of policy areas, and the ultimate responsibility will lie with Ministers across Government. However, their decisions will be informed by information and analysis from the ISOP, and the ISOP’s own decisions will make a contribution—for example, in areas such as electricity and gas network design, or the development of new balancing or ancillary services. I know the hon. Gentleman agrees that net zero is a whole-economy project.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question about how the ISOP will be held accountable, the ISOP will be a limited company, and the Secretary of State is the sole shareholder, holding ultimate responsibility for the effective corporate governance of the organisation. The Secretary of State will appoint the chair of the board, who will be responsible for leading the strategic direction of the ISOP.
The hon. Gentleman asked why it was decided not to extend the advisory role to the devolved authorities, and about the strategy and policy statement. The Bill relates to energy, which is a reserved matter, as he knows. We therefore consider that going beyond UK Government and Ofgem for a statutory duty to provide advice would create an undue burden on the new ISOP. Any costs to the provision of advice will fall on bill payers across Great Britain; the provision of advice should be focused on achieving benefit for all GB bill payers. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are upgrading the grid between Scotland and England; it is a priority of this Government to upgrade the grid across the entire United Kingdom. In answer to his last question, the strategy and policy statement is forthcoming soon.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 121 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 122 and 123 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 124
Licensing of electricity system operator activity
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Bowie
The clause amends the Electricity Act 1989 for four main purposes: first, to define the new electricity system operation licensable activities; secondly, to create the ISOP’s new electricity system operator licence and empower the Secretary of State to grant the first licence; thirdly, to ensure that the holder of the electricity system operator licence also holds the gas system planner licence; and finally, to ensure that if a person ceases to hold the gas system planner licence, they cease to hold the system operator electricity licence.
Clause 125 also relates to licensing. It is too early to determine the best course of action to create the ISOP’s electricity system operator licence. The Government consider it prudent to ensure that they have flexibility to ensure a smooth and efficient transition to the ISOP. One option is to revoke the existing licence and grant a completely new electricity system operator licence, but this clause offers another approach. It empowers the Secretary of State to direct that an existing transmission licence becomes the ISOP’s electricity system operator licence. If that power is used, the Secretary of State can make appropriate modifications to the existing licence when making such a direction, and the direction must be published.
Clause 126 covers the licensing of gas system planning activity. It makes amendments to the Gas Act 1986 that mirror the electricity licence in clause 125, but in respect of a gas system planner licence.
Clause 127 empowers the Secretary of State or Ofgem to make changes to licences and codes and revoke licences in preparation for, in relation with or in consequence of the designation of the ISOP.
Clause 128 sets out the process and rules for making licence modifications under the power in section 127. Before making any modification to licences or codes, the Secretary of State or Ofgem is required to publish a notice explaining the reasons for the changes, the proposed modifications and when they will take effect. The persons listed in subsection (2) must be notified, and their representations, if made within the specified period in the notice or before the changes take effect, need to be considered.
Dr Whitehead
This is all terrific stuff. I do not have much to say on this, other than that I was struggling to keep up with the Minister’s speed reading; I think I just about made it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 124 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 125 to 128 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 129
Provision of advice, analysis or information
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Bowie
The clause imposes a duty on the ISOP to provide advice, analysis or information requested by the Government or Ofgem. The Government and Ofgem will have to make important policy and regulatory decisions across many areas of the energy system to enable progress towards net zero. As a trusted independent entity, the ISOP will be well placed to provide expert and technical advice to decision-making bodies.
There are no provisions in legislation that oblige the current electricity and gas system operators to provide advice to the Secretary of State on request. Ofgem currently has more generalised powers to request information from its regulated bodies, but only for the purposes of monitoring and enforcement. The content of the advice, analysis or information requested should be on matters related to the ISOP’s functions, main objectives or matters that the ISOP must have regard to. The requestor should be able to provide some reasonable terms in respect of when and how the advice, analysis or information should be provided, which the ISOP must comply with in its response.
The Government recognise and agree with calls from respondents to the future system operator consultation that the ISOP’s expertise will be useful to the wider energy industry and consumers. That is why the Government plan to build on the existing responsibilities of the ISOP in licences or associated documents to enable the ISOP to share expertise and provide guidance to others where it considers it beneficial to consumers.
Clause 130 provides the ISOP with a power to request information, including data, where it is needed to help it fulfil its functions. Information can be requested from those engaged in, or those whom the ISOP reasonably considers intends to engage in, relevant activities as defined in clause 121(5).
Clause 131 imposes a duty on the ISOP to keep under review information about any policy initiatives or other developments in the energy sector that may be relevant to its functions. The clause is drafted by reference to the ISOP’s functions, and the obligation it imposes will align with those functions. We must ensure that the ISOP is horizon scanning and monitoring how markets and regulation may develop in the shorter or longer term. As discussed in the debate on clause 123, the ISOP will be required to have regard to five-yearly strategy and policy statements. The duty to keep under review is important for the ISOP to keep up-to-date with developments in the intervening five years. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Dr Whitehead
I have nothing to add. I am happy to agree to the clauses.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 129 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 130 and 131 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 140
Designation of codes etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Bowie
Part 5 of the Bill deals with the governance of gas and electricity industry codes. The energy codes are documents that contain the detailed rules of the electricity and gas systems. The rules cover everything from how buyers and sellers must interact in commercial markets, to the technical specifications required to connect to the grid. The codes are currently governed by industry parties such as electricity suppliers and gas transporters. The Government will create a new governance framework for the energy codes, which will move that responsibility to one or more newly created code managers. The code managers will be directly accountable to Ofgem rather than industry, which will allow Ofgem to drive strategic change across the codes, for the benefit of consumers and competition.
Clause 140 plays a central role in establishing the new framework, by allowing the Secretary of State to identify which codes and engineering standards fall within its scope. It does so by granting the Secretary of State the power to create and amend lists of documents that are critical to the operation of our electricity and gas systems. Once a document has been designated, all the enduring functions of the new governance framework will immediately go live for that document. At the same time, all the transitional powers granted to the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority by schedules 10 to 12 will cease to apply.
The Secretary of State may only designate documents that are maintained in accordance with the conditions of specified gas and electricity licences. The Secretary of State will not be able to expand the scope of the new governance framework beyond the gas and electricity sectors in Great Britain without a legislative change.
Clause 141 defines a “code manager” as the holder of a code manager licence in relation to a document that has been designated by the Secretary of State. Code managers are intended to replace the industry-led bodies that currently govern the code change process. The clause also defines a “code manager licence” as a licence under new section 7AC of the Gas Act 1986, or new section 6(1)(g) of the Electricity Act 1989. Once those sections are added to those Acts by clauses 136 and 137, it will become a criminal act for any person to manage a designated document without a licence or an appropriate exemption. The GEMA will be empowered to grant the two types of code manager licence—one in connection with electricity and one in connection with gas.
Clause 142 empowers the Secretary of State to identify which central systems fall within the scope of the governance framework in this part of the Bill. It does so by granting the Secretary of State the power to create and amend lists of relevant central systems, and enables the Secretary of State to identify the person responsible for operating, or procuring the operation of, those systems.
A “central system” is defined as an IT system that either supports the operation of an energy code, or processes, transmits or stores data in connection with the operation of that code. Once a system has been added to the list, the only practical effect will be to make the body responsible for operating the system eligible to receive directions from the GEMA, to ensure that the body complies with its obligations under the codes and, where necessary, takes steps to ensure the efficient operation of the code. The enforcement of the directions will be made possible by the amendments in schedule 10, which will allow the GEMA to treat relevant bodies as regulated persons in this specific context.
The Bill specifies that the Secretary of State may only designate central systems that support the operation of a designated document, such as an electricity or gas code. All changes to the initial list of designations will require receipt of an appropriate recommendation from the GEMA. As the market continues to adapt and evolve, it is likely that new systems will need to be developed, and that existing systems may need to be decommissioned. The Secretary of State’s ability to create and maintain a list of central systems will help to future-proof the framework. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Dr Whitehead
We now turn to energy codes and their managers, probably one of the most baffling and tedious parts of the entire energy spectrum. I understand that people who have gone into codes and code managers have on occasion subsequently been found miles from home in a distressed state, unable to remember their name or how they got there. The Minister has been speaking in a pretty chirpy voice, though, so he might not fall into that category, or perhaps he has not got too far into codes.
I seek some elucidation from the Minister. One purpose of clause 140 is to facilitate the bringing together of codes and the operation of those codes under new licensing—ownership, we might say—arrangements. That needs to be put in the context of where we are at the moment with codes. We have no fewer than 11 different codes for different parts of the industry, including the balancing and settlement code, the connection and use of system code, the distribution connection and use of system agreement, the grid code, the system operator transmission owner code and, more recently, a consolidated retail energy code under a new company called the Retail Energy Code Company—an imaginative name for such a firm.
The point about all those disaggregated and sometimes very much stand-alone codes is that they are owned by different actors. Some of the code management ownership is in the hands of companies that are active in the energy field, some in semi-free-standing, not-for-profit organisations, and some in entirely free-standing, not-for-profit organisations. There is no consistency in who manages the codes at the moment.
I hope that, as a result of these clauses being passed, the Government will have the opportunity systematically to make a much more coherent and integrated system of codes. It is important, however, to have a principle in that process for who will actually own the code management system. I hope and expect that the Minister will say that that will, at the very least, be independent, free-standing, not-for-profit companies or organisations, rather than at least part of the code management being kept in the hands of the industry that is itself bound by the codes. That looks a bit circular.
If the Minister is able to elucidate on that a bit, then I think we will be happy to ensure that this part of the Bill passes in an expeditious manner.
Andrew Bowie
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We do not want to introduce anything that makes reaching our net zero goals or the future governance of the energy system any more complicated or circular—to use his word—than it already is. He went through some of the 11 codes and engineering standards: the balancing and settlement code; the connection and use of system code; the distribution connection and use of system agreement; the distribution code; the grid code; the retail energy code; the smart energy code; the system operator transmission owner code; the security and quality of supply standard; the uniform network code, and the independent gas transporters uniform network code. It would be wrong to do anything that further complicates an already complicated area; he is right in what he says about finding ourselves miles from home, forgetting our own name.
Andrew Bowie
It gives me great pleasure to speak to clauses 143 to 147. Clause 143 establishes code management as a licensable activity within the gas sector. The primary responsibility of the code managers, once licensed, will be to make arrangements for the governance of their respective codes. The GEMA’s ability to license code managers is a central feature of the new governance framework established by this part of the Bill. Clause 143 makes it possible for the GEMA to license code managers by making three sets of amendments to the licensing regime in the Gas Act 1986. Clause 144 serves the same purpose for the Electricity Act 1989, and the two should be seen as working together to establish the new licensing framework.
The first set of amendments makes it a criminal offence to perform the activity of code management in the gas sector without a licence, unless an exemption has been granted. That is necessary to ensure that no more than one person is able to make lawful arrangements for the governance of a gas code at the same time. The second set of amendments makes it possible for the GEMA to grant code manager licences to qualifying persons through the code manager selection processes established elsewhere in the Bill.
Finally, the third set of amendments will require the GEMA to grant licences for codes that contain both gas and electricity provisions at the same time. That requirement will prevent inadvertent breaches of the prohibition on code management in the electricity sector, which is set out in the clause 144. Without the combined effect of these three sets of amendments, it would not be possible for the new code governance framework established by this part of the Bill to function as a licensable activity.
Clause 144 establishes code management as a licensable activity in the electricity sector. The responsibilities of these code managers will be the same as those licensed in the gas sector, as outlined in clause 143. Clause 144 makes it possible for the GEMA to license code managers by making three sets of amendments to the licensing regime in the Electricity Act 1989. Those amendments serve the same purpose as the three outlined in the previous clause to the Gas Act 1986.
My arguments in recommending clause 143 apply equally to clause 144, so I will not labour those points. Without the combined effect of these sets of amendments, it would not be possible for the new code governance framework established by this part of the Bill to function as a licensable activity.
Clause 145 empowers the GEMA to select code managers on a competitive or non-competitive basis. The selection method will be informed by regulations that may be made by the Secretary of State. It is important that the GEMA has the flexibility it needs to select the right body for each role.
Code managers will play a central role in the new governance framework. Their primary responsibility will be to make arrangements for the governance of their respective codes. They will support the delivery of any strategic direction published by the GEMA. Any person who is selected for the role will need the right mix of code-specific knowledge and expertise to be effective.
Due to the differences between the codes, it may be difficult to determine a single best-fit selection method. Some codes may benefit from a competitive tender process, whereas others might find a direct selection process to be more efficient. That variation exists because the codes have evolved independently to occupy unique positions in the market. It would be beneficial for the selection options available to the GEMA to be equally varied.
The Secretary of State may wish to inform the GEMA’s choice of selection method by specifying in regulations the criteria that it would need to apply. Those regulations will allow the Government to ensure that the selection process will produce suitable candidates, while enabling the GEMA to make the final decision on which selection method to use and, indeed, who to select. The details of the regulations are still subject to public consultation. Potential criteria could include minimum conditions that a body must meet to qualify for selection.
The GEMA’s ability to select and license code managers is a central element of the new governance framework. To ensure that the process works as expected, it will be vital for the Secretary of State to have the option of creating regulations to inform how code managers are selected and who should be eligible for the role.
Clause 146 empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations about the non-competitive selection of code managers by the GEMA. Those regulations may be used to make provision about the selection of code managers other than by competitive tender, such as who may or may not be eligible for selection.
Clause 147 allows the GEMA to draft regulations about the selection of code managers by competitive means, which would then require approval by the Secretary of State. Those regulations would be used by the GEMA if it ever decided to select a code manager by running a competitive tender process.
Dr Whitehead
I have no comments on the clauses. I am happy for them to stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 143 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 144 to 147 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 148
Strategic direction statement
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Bowie
Clause 148 places a duty on the GEMA, which is getting quite the airing this afternoon, to publish an annual strategic direction statement about the codes. It also sets out various process requirements and empowers the Secretary of State to supplement the list of required content via regulations.
The purpose of the strategic direction statement is to set out how the codes will or may need to evolve over the following 12 months. At a minimum, it will be required to include a strategic assessment of Government priorities and wider developments in the energy sector relating to codes. The Secretary of State will have the ability to add to the minimum list of content by regulations.
The publication of the annual statement will serve as a framework for code managers when they develop their annual delivery plans. It will also provide interested parties and the Government with information regarding pending code changes, allowing insight into the overall direction of travel. Finally, it will be the primary vehicle by which Government policy priorities are factored into the future development of the energy codes. That will be achieved by regulations, whereby the Secretary of State may add to the list of content that the GEMA must include in its statement. However, any decisions regarding what decisions to take based on that content will always remain with the GEMA.
The clause also sets out the processes that the GEMA must follow when drafting and publishing the statement, including a requirement to consult with all persons who are likely to be affected and to send notice to various consumer-focused organisations. The strategic direction statement is a central element of the new governance framework. To ensure that it continues to meet these purposes, it is important that the Secretary of State has the option to update the list of required content over time.
Clause 149 allows the Secretary of State to permanently transfer the GEMA’s new duty to produce an annual strategic direction statement to the ISOP through regulations. This power has been included to future-proof for a scenario in which the ISOP may emerge as the most suitable entity to take on this duty. While the GEMA is currently the best placed organisation to publish the strategic direction statement, the ISOP, created by part 4 of the Bill, which we discussed earlier, may emerge to be better placed to take on the duty in the future.
Once it is fully established, the ISOP will have various advisory capabilities, an overview of the full energy system, and dedicated planning functions. That may make it a better candidate to publish a strategic direction statement for the codes. However, when the ISOP is first established, it may not have the capabilities or operational maturity in its system-wide strategic and planning functions to take on such a duty. The electricity system operator may therefore remain a code administrator for multiple codes—at least until a new code manager is selected for them. This role could therefore present an undesirable conflict of interest were the ISOP to write the strategic direction early on in the process. As a result, any transfer would be unlikely to take place until the ISOP is fully established and the wider code reforms are complete.
The Secretary of State may make regulations to effect the transfer in duty. Clause 149 sets out the specific changes to legislation that those regulations must make to update references from the GEMA to the ISOP in clause 148. The wording of the clause will ensure that the regulations are used only for a specific purpose, which is important given that they would modify primary legislation. The Secretary of State will be required to consult with the GEMA, the ISOP and other affected parties before making any regulations. In addition, the regulations would need to be laid using the affirmative procedure to ensure the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny.
Dr Whitehead
We certainly have no objections to the clauses. I commend to the Committee clause 149, which enables the transfer of functions on strategic direction between the GEMA and the ISOP. That is a wise and prudent element to include. I accept what the Minister says about the maturity of the ISOP in its early years to carry out the functions. That provision means that the changes can be made at the right time, and on a permanent basis, and I welcome that.
Andrew Bowie
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s welcome.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 148 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 149 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 150
Modification of designated documents by GEMA
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Bowie
Clause 150 empowers the GEMA to modify codes directly in certain circumstances to ensure the smooth operation of and transition to the new governance framework. It also empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out how and when the power may be used, and to act as a necessary backstop to clarify and frame the scope of the use.
Clause 151 sets out the practical steps that the GEMA must follow before it can make a direct modification under the circumstances set out in clause 150. Clause 152 empowers the GEMA to issue directions to the bodies that are responsible for operating, or procuring, the critical IT systems that underpin the energy system. Clause 153 sets out the procedural steps and associated controls that the GEMA must follow when making a direction to a central system delivery body, under the powers granted in clause 152.
Dr Whitehead
I have no comments on the clauses, and commend them to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 150 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 151 to 153 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 154
Principal objective and general duties of Secretary of State and GEMA under Part 5
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Bowie
Clause 154 extends the principal objectives and general duties set out in the relevant sections of the Gas Act 1986 and the Electricity Act 1989 to all the new functions granted to the Secretary of State and the GEMA under this part of the Bill. The extension includes an obligation on both the Secretary of State and the GEMA to carry out their new functions in a way that protects the interests of existing and future consumers. That obligation will place consumers at the heart of our new code governance framework.
Clause 155 updates the GEMA’s reporting requirements so that it must include an overview of any developments or decisions relating to codes in its annual report. It does that by inserting relevant provisions into the list found in section 5 of the Utilities Act 2000.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 154 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 155 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 156
Regulations under Part 5
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 98, in clause 156, page 135, line 26, after “section” insert “146 and”.
The section presently is all under negative SI formation, with the exception of clause 149, which is positive. However, other sections in the part, including section 146, look as if they should have affirmative treatment because of the Secretary of State powers in respect of those sections. As such, this amendment seeks to include it as an affirmative exemption from the rest of the part.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 156 to 158 stand part.
That schedules 10 and 11 be the Tenth and Eleventh schedules to the Bill.
Clause 159 stand part.
That schedule 12 be the Twelfth schedule to the Bill.
Dr Whitehead
I will speak strictly to the amendment. I advise Members not to go anywhere near schedules 10 to 12, because they might not come back in the same state in which they started to read them.
Amendment 98 is part of my largely forlorn mission to ensure that Parliament is fully involved in decision making, with regulations being made on an affirmative rather than negative basis. The Committee will observe that, in clause 156, the affirmative procedure is specified for regulations only as far as clause 149, which we have already briefly discussed and relates to the transfer of functions from GEMA to the ISOP for strategic purposes. However, it seems to me that there are other clauses in this area that Members ought to have more of a say in, at least in terms of the product of those clauses coming before them through the affirmative procedure, and thus to be debated in the House before being put into place. For example, the selection of a code manager on a non-competitive basis by GEMA might be something that Members might like to have a rather more serious look at, rather than the process being done under the negative procedure, whereby, if a Member is lucky, they might spot that it has been published and then have a certain number of days in which they can do anything, but otherwise the regulations will just go into force.
I think it would be a good idea to extend the protections for Parliament, as it were, under clause 156 to some of those other clauses. It is not something that I would want to go to the wall on, but I hope that the Minister will have a look to see whether he thinks that some of those being subject to the affirmative procedure rather than the negative might be a better way to proceed.
Andrew Bowie
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his amendment. The regulations established in part 5 will be technical in nature, with a focus on describing the different types of direct selection options, such as appointment of an existing licensee and any constraints on their use. In determining the suitable procedure, we have considered the impact on parliamentary time and the precedents in similar regulations in other areas of statute. For example, similar powers for the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority under section 6C of the Electricity Act 1989 have no parliamentary procedure in relation to offshore transmission owner tenders.
The regulations will provide for variations of the direct selection route already spelled out in the Bill. We do not think that parliamentary time will be effectively used by subjecting these regulations to the affirmative procedure. I hope that the hon. Member feels suitably reassured and will therefore be content to withdraw his amendment—notwithstanding what he just said a few minutes ago.
I will now turn to clauses 156 to 159. Clause 156 confirms that the regulations established under part 5 will be subject to the negative or the affirmative procedure. Clause 157 identifies several key terms that are used throughout part 5 and explains which sections contain the corresponding definitions. It is therefore intended solely as an aid to interpretation. Clause 158 introduces schedules 10 and 11 to the Bill, which contain various transitional provisions that may be exercised in connection with this part. It is intended solely to convey that the contents of those schedules exist and will be critical to the implementation of energy code governance reform.
Clause 159 introduces schedule 12, which contains details of various amendments required to other Acts as a consequence of this part of the Bill. The purpose of schedule 12 is to set out the details of the relevant amendments, which deal with one of two topics. The first topic relates to clause 152, which, as we have already heard, empowers GEMA to issue directions to the bodies that are responsible for operating, or procuring the operation of, the critical IT systems that underpin the energy system. I therefore commend the clauses to the Committee.
Dr Whitehead
The Minister has not entirely satisfied me on this. In general, regulations should be affirmative, unless there is a good reason for them to be negative—not the other way around. The Minister has suggested this afternoon that the other way around appears to be the default for his Department in this respect. I do not think that that is good practice for legislation in general, but who am I to take on the entire forces of parliamentary legislation writers all by myself? I hope that we can perhaps get a better outcome for such things in future, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 156 to 158 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 10 and 11 agreed to.
Clause 159 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 12 agreed to.
Clause 160
Competitive tenders for electricity projects
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 99, clause 160, page 136, line 20, at end insert—
“(2) Strategic transmission network projects that are—
(a) identified in the Electricity Networks Strategic framework,
(b) built ahead of need whilst long term good value for money, and
(c) in the opinion of the Secretary of State essential to support renewable and energy security objectives,
are not subject to Schedule 13 of this Act.”
This amendment seeks explicitly to exempt certain strategic transmission network projects from the provisions of Schedule 13.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
That schedule 13 be the Thirteenth schedule to the Bill.
Clause 161 stand part.
That schedule 14 be the Fourteenth schedule to the Bill.
Dr Whitehead
We come to the first section of part 6 of the Bill, which deals with market reform and consumer protection. The first clauses in this part relate to developing far greater competition for electricity generation, networks and so on.
The idea that there should be greater competition in the development of networks and other such things is not in dispute. Indeed, one argument in favour of the principle is that some of the delays in the development of the network from its previous centralised, spine-outwards approach, to a decentralised, spine-inwards approach, are due to the rather sterile ways in which the new network was commissioned. Having greater competition will not only bring potential new investors into the process, but may in certain circumstances speed the process up. It would certainly be a much better vehicle for bringing forward the anticipatory investment that is necessary to get the grid going in the way that we need it to go. However, what is happening with new grid development appears to point in the opposite direction.
Ofgem published its “Decision on accelerating onshore electricity transmission investment” in December 2022, concerning the extent to which investment in certain projects should not be subject to competition. As I am sure the Minister is aware, that relates to the accelerated strategic transmission investment programme that Ofgem has been pursuing. It will identify all the big strategic network challenges and projects to decide how important and strategic those projects are likely to be and how important they are to the realisation of the other ambitions of the network, and decide through the ASTI programme which ones will be accelerated up to 2030, which ones may be considered for after 2030, and which ones stand outside the system as a whole. As we have previously touched on, those standing outside the system as a whole may well be those of less strategic significance—maybe at a distribution network operator level—although they are no less important, even though they are below the very highest level of grid generation.
Following Ofgem’s intervention in this field, we now have a situation where most of the large onshore transmission investment framework and, indeed, some of the framework that goes offshore as well as onshore, will effectively be handed over to the National Grid to develop before 2030. There may well be an argument—quite an important argument, I think—that, right now, our grid structure is in such a bad way that we are saying, “Go away and get on with it. Do it as soon as possible. We will back you in doing it.” Obviously, a lot of additional things must be added to that decision to get on and do it, such as accelerated planning and deciding whether some routes may give more value for money in the long term—by going partly underground, for example. Even though they are more expensive, they actually overcome some of the objections in the process so that the whole thing can be done at a rapid rate.
There are substantial arguments in that direction, but it could be that the overall need for speed means that the ASTI programme would be extended beyond the 2030s and to a wider range of projects, at which point the provisions in the Bill and the actual provisions undertaken on the ground will pull in two quite different directions. It is important that we are able to bring those two together so that we have a clear distinction between what we are and are not competing for in terms of speed and direction.
Other questions are involved here, particularly about the financing of such projects and whether the company now undertaking to bring forward these truly nationally strategic investment projects will actually be able financially to run them in parallel rather than in sequence. That is an important consideration in terms of what is in the legislation and what we are trying to do strategically to get out of the current position, where we are moving too slowly for the development of low-carbon systems. We do not have major concerns about the competition process itself, other than those we expressed in this amendment, which aims to do roughly what Ofgem has started to do, but in a way that makes a clear distinction between what is and is not competition for future strategic purposes. I hope that the amendment will be seen as helpful, but there may be other ways that that sort of outcome, with the strains we have upon us that I have described, can be successfully negotiated.
Andrew Bowie
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his amendment, which I believe is intended to be helpful—as are all of his amendments. However, I gently disagree with him that we might be heading in the wrong direction on this.
The Government recognise the importance of clarifying which projects are within the scope of competition and which are to be exempt, and steps have already been taken to provide that clarity. We are already seeking powers for the Secretary of State to set criteria to determine whether projects are eligible for competition through clause 160. The underlying guiding policy in their design is whether there is a consumer benefit to competing any given project.
The Government recognise that their application could cause some uncertainty in the immediate term. That is why, last year, we committed to exempting certain strategic projects from competition. Ofgem, the independent regulator, published in December 2022 a decision on which projects are exempt—projects worth approximately £20 billion—and is working with industry to accelerate those network projects so they are ready for 2030.
Therefore, I believe that, sadly, the amendment is unnecessary. It would duplicate existing policy work to exempt certain strategic projects and would create an unnecessary avenue for exemptions, beyond the existing criteria that Ofgem will apply to determine eligibility for competition. For those reasons, I hope the hon. Gentleman feels able to withdraw this amendment.
Clause 160 gives effect to schedule 13 to the Bill, which sets out the mechanism for enabling competitive tenders to take place in onshore electricity networks. To ensure energy security for Great Britain, significant investment is needed in our electricity network to meet an estimated doubling in demand up to 2050. The electricity networks strategic framework, published in August 2022, sets out the estimated additional £100 billion to £240 billion of investment required in the onshore network to meet net zero.
Under the current system, network companies that are regional monopolies build, own and operate our network. They are regulated to do so efficiently through Ofgem’s price control processes, but it is vital that we guarantee value for money by ensuring that network investment is cost-efficient and strategic. That is why clause 160 is important.
I turn now to clause 161 and schedule 14. The first part of the clause introduces schedule 14, which establishes the new energy network special mergers regime. The regime is designed to enable the Competition and Markets Authority to assess whether a merger between certain energy network enterprises in Great Britain substantially prejudices Ofgem’s ability to carry out certain regulatory functions. Specifically, it relates to the price control process by which Ofgem determines how much energy network companies can spend and, therefore, how much they will pass on to consumers through energy bills.
The Government have estimated that introducing the regime could save energy consumers up to £420 million over 10 years by avoiding excess profits for energy network enterprises.
Dr Whitehead
The Minister may well be right—I do not say that very often, but I will say it on this occasion. This amendment, by the way, was initially drafted in the long-distant period when the Bill first emerged over the horizon, beyond the timeframe of most of our memories now, and it has been superseded at least partly by what Ofgem has been doing as far as ASTI is concerned. I am happy to withdraw it on that basis, but I hope we will keep that clear distinction for the future. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 160 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 13 agreed to.
Clause 161 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 14 agreed to.
Clause 162
Licence required for operation of multi-purpose interconnector
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 163 to 167 stand part.
That schedule 15 be the Fifteenth schedule to the Bill.
Andrew Bowie
Multi-purpose interconnectors are assets that combine electricity interconnectors between Great Britain and other jurisdictions with electricity transmission connections for offshore wind. They can help us achieve our net zero target by further integrating renewables into the grid. However, the existing legal framework does not enable the operation of a multi-purpose interconnector. Without a legal definition, there is a lack of clarity over their treatment.
Clause 162 introduces the definition of a multi-purpose interconnector into the Electricity Act 1989. It also amends that Act to ensure that a person who operates a multi-purpose interconnector will be required to hold a licence or exemption. To minimise conflicts of interest, the clause also ensures that the same person may not hold a multi-purpose interconnector licence while simultaneously holding a licence for electricity generation, transmission, distribution or supply. It also prohibits the same person from simultaneously holding multi-purpose and standard interconnector licences.
Multi-purpose interconnectors are a nascent technology, and the clause ensures that the definition of a multi-purpose interconnector is broad enough to account for the range of technologies involved in their operation, including future technologies. For example, although early multi-purpose interconnectors look to combine electricity interconnection with offshore wind, future multi-purpose interconnectors may link with energy islands or include the electrification of offshore oil and gas and CCUS platforms.
Clause 163 introduces the requirement for the Secretary of State to set the standard conditions for the multi-purpose interconnector licence, ensuring Government oversight. It outlines the requirement for the Secretary of State to publish the standard conditions, with the publication to be done in the manner considered appropriate by the Secretary of State. The clause contains a provision for specific standard conditions included in the multi-purpose interconnector licence to not have effect until brought into operation. It also includes a provision for the suspension of the effect of specific standard conditions included in the multi-purpose interconnector licence, as well as a provision to reintroduce the effect of suspended standard conditions. That may be necessary due to changes in trading arrangements, for example.
To ensure the standard conditions determined by the Secretary of State are incorporated, clause 163 will amend the Electricity Act 1989. That amendment will need to be commenced by secondary legislation to allow sufficient time for development of the standard licence conditions. Once commenced, the Secretary of State will not be able to further modify the standard conditions; however, they may veto proposals made by the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority to modify the standard licence conditions. The procedures detailed in the clause are in line with those that were introduced for interconnector licences.
Clause 164 amends the Electricity Act 1989 by inserting new section 10NA, which ensures that any person who operates a multi-purpose interconnector has been certified by Ofgem to be independent from electricity generation and supply activities, reducing the risk of conflicts of interest. That Act already provides for standard interconnectors to receive certification from Ofgem, and it is thus considered appropriate to extend that provision to multi-purpose interconnectors. Certification is a necessary precursor to the award of multi-purpose interconnector licences.
Clause 165 details the power of the Secretary of State to grant MPI licences to existing operators developing pilot project MPIs. The Government and Ofgem have continued to support pilot MPI projects to develop, as it is the Government’s intention to encourage operators to move towards a more co-ordinated and efficient offshore network. The clause enables the Secretary of State to grant an MPI licence to existing operators who hold an interconnection or offshore transmission licence for the purposes of developing a multi-purpose interconnector. That licence will replace operators’ existing interconnector or offshore transmission licence.
The clause also reads in minor modifications to the Electricity Act 1989, so that relevant sections will apply to the exercise of the Secretary of State’s power in this clause. It also includes a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult the potential MPI licensee and the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority prior to granting a licence. Furthermore, this provision mirrors existing powers that were brought forward through the Energy Act 2004. Those powers allowed the Government to grant interconnector licences to persons who were operating interconnectors under transmission licences. Reflecting that standard, clause 165 will allow the Government to grant MPI licences to persons who are operating MPIs under interconnector or transmission licences.
Clause 166 essentially enables the Secretary of State to amend existing legislation to ensure that multi-purpose interconnectors are not accidentally impacted by current laws. As MPIs—as I have already said—are a nascent technology, there is the potential for some aspects of the regulatory frameworks, market trading arrangements, and operational processes to transform once MPI activity commences.
The full detail of any possible necessary changes is difficult to identify at this stage. Following the pilot MPI projects, the Government will be in a better position to understand the full range of changes needed. The Secretary of State must consult GEMA before bringing forward any regulations. Any regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure. In this way, the Government can adequately balance the need to be flexible in a changing landscape with the need to ensure that there is appropriate parliamentary scrutiny.
Clause 167 introduces schedule 15, which makes minor and consequential amendments to existing Acts. The majority of the consequential amendments will be made to the Electricity Act 1989, which makes provision regarding the supply, generation and transmission of electricity. Other Acts affected include the Energy Act 2004, the Utilities Act 2000 and the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. The changes will ensure that the legal framework for multi-purpose interconnectors functions properly alongside existing legislation.
I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Dr Whitehead
The Minister obviously had to read all that stuff out, so I will try to simplify it a bit for the Committee. At the moment, we have a number of interconnectors, which basically go from A to B. They go from Norway, Belgium, Holland and France and between England, Wales and Ireland. They are very much A to B, two-way connectors. When I say that they come from Norway, France and so on, it is a potential two-way process.
However, under regulation, the interconnectors have very much stayed exactly as that. For the next stage of our development, as far as low-carbon renewables are concerned, we need interconnectors that can actually take what is coming from, say, the North sea and bring it on board to the interconnector—possibly via an energy island, as the Minister said—and then send the resulting electricity in any direction. Currently, that is effectively banned. A two-way interconnector cannot be interrupted for that purpose. Having multi-purpose interconnectors not only enables that, but, as we try to develop a much better grid system in the North sea, it enables a great deal of use to be made of those interconnectors. That means being used not only for the purpose of landing offshore wind, but, as the Minister said, for, for example, repowering North sea oil and gas rigs. In other words, that means integrating all the things happening in the North sea into a big energy endeavour. Multi-purpose interconnectors are absolutely vital for that.
I very much welcome the clauses, but I would say just one thing. I am pleased to hear that the Minister will pursue an iterative process in developing regulation for multi-purpose interconnectors, or MPIs, as we will call them from now on, but interconnectors go between two jurisdictions and sometimes have to deal at both ends with slightly different electricity markets in order to carry out the functions of the two-way electricity flow—that is the same for gas interconnectors, by the way. We may therefore get into the position where they will straddle different jurisdictions in terms of their operability to gather and collect what is going to that interconnector, but without landing directly and then going to another country. For example, MPIs may well interface between the UK and Norwegian offshore zones, while potentially straddling UK and Dutch offshore zones, and so on. Therefore, the matter of who is responsible for what is coming into and out of the system could be much more complicated than it is at the moment with the current A to B interconnectors. Multi-purpose interconnectors could even serve several different countries’ territorial areas across the North sea.
Andrew Bowie
There is very little of what the hon. Member said that I disagree with. I thank him for that contribution to the debate. We will be looking at this nascent technology in the years to come as it develops, in order to grow, support and regulate for that industry. As is the case throughout the Bill, these clauses set out the regulatory framework upon which these industries can build and expand in this country, and this Government can support them through that. I thank the hon. Member for his comments.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 162 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 163 to 167 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 15 agreed to.
Clause 168
Electricity storage
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Bowie
Electricity storage can enable us to use energy more flexibly and decarbonise our energy system cost effectively. For example, it can help to balance the system at lower cost, maximise the use of intermittent renewables, and reduce the need for network upgrades and new generation. However, the regulatory framework for electricity was not built with technologies such as electricity storage in mind; they did not exist. Without a definition there is a lack of legal clarity over its treatment, which can disincentivise investment and hence the deployment of storage.
The clause clarifies that electricity storage is a distinct subset of generation in the Electricity Act 1989. It also defines storage as energy that was converted from electricity, and is stored for the purpose of its future reconversion into electricity. The measure removes current ambiguities and provides long-term clarity over electricity storage’s treatment within the existing frameworks and possible future frameworks. By doing so, it facilitates the deployment of storage.
Dr Whitehead
All I can say is: hooray! I have spent quite a lot of time on previous occasions attempting to get the House to legislate on separate electricity storage licences—freestanding without the current restrictions on storage. It is regarded as being both in and out, and therefore potentially subject to separate licences. An important change will come about as a result of this clause.
To go back to our previous discussion on codes, quite a lot of energy storage is likely to be further hampered by the existence of the codes themselves, which are very restricted to battery storage, long-term storage and the arrangements that go with that. It is important that we look at those codes at the same time to ensure that they are as up to date as possible, in line with new licences that may be put out. However, the fact that we at last have a category for storage in licensing, which will greatly facilitate the rise of particularly long-duration storage, is only to be applauded.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 168 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 169
Payment as alternative to complying with certain energy company obligations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Bowie
The clause enables the Secretary of State to introduce a voluntary buy-out mechanism under the energy company obligation—ECO—scheme, through amending the Gas Act 1986 and the Electricity Act 1989.
Under the ECO scheme, there is currently an exemption for energy suppliers with fewer than 150,000 domestic customer accounts. The exemption is contentious, and the Government committed to consulting on how it could be reduced without smaller suppliers incurring disproportionate costs. We are proposing to do so through a buy-out mechanism. The clause provides the powers to create buy-out, with secondary legislation required to establish the details of the said mechanism. The measure enables small suppliers to meet their ECO obligations by simply making a payment to an approved third party for an approved purpose.
The clause also enables the Secretary of State to determine and publish the buy-out price, which can be set differently for different periods or scheme phases. By doing so, it ensures that the buy-out price is based on the most up-to-date information on the estimated cost of the promotion of measures. The final part of the clause sets out that the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers can impose criteria for approving third parties and purposes. There are no limitations in primary legislation on such criteria, because the use of the buy-out will depend on the wider policy goals behind the administration of future schemes, which are subject to change over time.
By introducing the buy-out mechanism and obligating more suppliers under the ECO, the costs of meeting the obligations will be shared across a larger customer base. That will result in a fairer energy market by reducing any current distortions between obligated and non-obligated suppliers, and it will spread the cost of the ECO more equally across customers’ bills.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 169 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 170
Smart meters: extension of time for exercise of powers
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 100, in clause 170, page 146, line 7, at end insert—
“(5) Within six months of the date of this section coming into force, the Secretary of State must produce and lay before Parliament a report setting out options for securing a guaranteed roll-out of smart meters to at least 70% of premises in all regions and nations of the United Kingdom by 2025.
(6) The report under subsection (5) must consider, among other options—
(a) obligatory smart meter installation,
(b) transfer of responsibility for smart meter roll-out to Distribution Network Operators, and
(c) time limits for phasing out meters which are not smart meters.”
The purpose of a report under this amendment is to emphasise that the Government should be aiming for at least 70% coverage in all regions and nations of the UK by 2025.
Dr Whitehead
The amendment relates to clause 170, which is very much another stand-alone clause; it concerns smart meters, and nothing else in the Bill relates to smart meters. We think that there ought to be a rather more serious approach to the question of smart meters and their present position in the energy firmament than the clause provides. I want to amplify that for a moment.
Where we are with smart meters is nothing short of a creeping long-term disaster as far as the UK energy economy is concerned. I am sure that Members will be aware that the introduction of smart meters came about through a 2012 piece of legislation with a view to starting the roll-out in about 2013 or 2014. The Minister responsible for the 2012 legislation said that the roll-out would start in 2014 and would be complete by 2019, when we would have 100% smart meters across the country. Ever since the 2012 legislation and the beginning of the roll-out, there have been repeated returns to the legislative process, including the Smart Meters Act 2018, which among other things included various measures on the Data Communications Company, about which I perhaps should not say too much for fear of becoming upset.
The thrust of that Act was to extend the timescale during which there would be jurisdiction over the process by the regulator, various other people and the DCC from 2019 to 2023. And here we are in 2023, having a further go at doing exactly the same: extending the exercise of powers from November 2023 to 1 November 2028. It is as though, if we continue to flog the dead horse for another five years, maybe the horse will miraculously come back to life again and we will all have the smart meters installed.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
I can speak from my own personal experience about why the horse is not dead and is benefiting from new technology. I wanted to have a smart meter and I could not, because the mobile phone signal was not good enough in the north of England. We have made great strides since 2019, so I think that horse still has a breath of life as technology, especially gigabit coverage, expands.
Dr Whitehead
My dead horse was perhaps something of an over-dramatic metaphor, but at the very least the horse is pretty sickly. That is partly because the smart meter wide area systems in the north of England are different from those in the south of England; the roll-out of smart meters in the north of England and in particular regions has been much slower and more problematic than has been the case in the south of England.
When we see the roll-out of smart meters now being 56% of all meters in Great Britain, the figure hides a number disturbing points, one of which I think the hon. Member for South Ribble will certainly want to worry about: that the roll-out in certain parts of Great Britain—strictly speaking, statistics are not provided on a regional basis, so I am citing evidence gathered by other means—could be as low as 30-odd per cent. in certain regions of the UK.
That is important not just because it is a good idea to have a smart meter that reads bills so that people do not have to continue to send their reading in, and not just because someone can look at their meter and see what sort of energy they have used and therefore can economise —although those are important things. One of the overwhelmingly important parts of the smart meter roll-out has always been and will always be the extent to which the smart meter network gives the country the opportunity to move forward radically with different forms of managing its electricity structures, including: a demand-side basis equivalent to the supply-side basis; ensuring that systems are resilient in terms of the information the smart meters are giving out; and enabling both prosumers and consumers to come closer together when it comes to what is going in and out of the smart meter via self-generation or other devices. There are all sorts of things, including half-hourly settlements, that will collectively make our energy system much greener, much better and much more resilient.
Indeed, the ability of smart meters to aggregate data—another area that we might want to consider—means they can read in real time the nation’s electricity activity. In the context of the roll-out of electric vehicles and all that goes with it, and all sorts of other things such as heat pumps, the ability to gauge in aggregate electricity demand at particular times, including where that demand may stress the system, means that activities can be undertaken that will divert from that and use the system much more effectively. That all depends on what is happening with smart meters and the information they give out. It is about—Daily Mail, take note—not capturing people’s personal information but capturing aggregate information that comes out of smart meter use as a whole. And that is where we are in a potentially disastrous position for the future, because the 55% roll-out does not mean 55% of all meters; as I have said, there are big regional divergences. I am very pleased that the hon. Member for South Ribble has got her smart meter in—[Interruption.] She has not.
Katherine Fletcher
Unfortunately, I have only an electricity one now, after the mobile phone signal was upgraded; the gas cannot take it, because of the construction of the house. There are a number of practical problems that we have to get over. The issue is not just consumer desire.
Dr Whitehead
Indeed. That was why I was pretty dubious about the 2G system, essentially, being used for this purpose in the north of the country. It is not fit for purpose and will not be fit for purpose in the future. It needs to be substantially revised.
Dr Whitehead
Yes. The various retail energy companies that have been responsible for the roll-out have in many instances tried their hardest, but they have been overcome by the sort of obstacles that the hon. Member mentions. For example, in an urban environment, meters may be in the basement of a block of flats and then somehow the smart meter is supposed to communicate from the 7th floor to the meters in the basement—the arrangements between the meter and the householder. That is over and above the problems with radio signals and phone signals that there have been in the north of England.
The roll-out is 55% after nine years of active operation, so let us say that that goes on at the same rate, although it very probably will not, because we have captured all the low-hanging fruit as far as smart meters are concerned, and smart meters are getting more and more difficult to install.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the shadow Minister is making an important point about where smart meters cannot always be installed and some of the difficulties that there have been in this process. I am sure that both he and the Secretary of State will be aware of the situation in the area around RAF Fylingdales, for example, where, because of the strength of some of the radio technology used there, people cannot get a smart meter in something like a 40-mile radius of the airbase. Does he think that the Government considered such things when they put in the 2019 target that they have so spectacularly failed to hit?
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the Government did not consider that. There were discussions at the time of the earlier smart meter roll-out about radio systems that could get over precisely those problems by patching in—that is, going on the back of a good radio signal and patch in on the next radio signal, where the overwhelming radio signal is against signals operating properly. But that decision was not made at the time. It was a one-frequency signal for the south of England and phone arrangements for the north of England, with the results that we now see.
Halfway through the roll-out it was decided to change the specification of the meter itself. Because the process of changing the specification was so slow, a number of retail companies that had large stocks of the original meters continued to install the SMETS1 meters long after they should have stopped installing them—just because they had those stocks, which the new specification had not got round to replacing because of the delays in the so-called SMETS2 meters coming on to the market and being installed. Consequently, a number of meters are still not operating in smart mode, because they are either awaiting update or replacement so that they can go into the smarter system. Of the 31.3 million smart and advanced meters that are currently in homes, only 28.1 million are operating in smart mode. The roll-out is worse than it looks from the overall statistics.
What do we do about all that? The Government have put a clause in the Bill that simply says to retail companies, “Okay, we are going to give you more of the same. We are going to regulate you and give you targets”—which, by and large, the retail companies are not achieving—“and if you don’t achieve those targets we are going to fine you and whip you harder to ensure you achieve them.” Frankly, if we go on in the present direction we will get to 2028, and we do not need detailed maths to demonstrate that we will not be much further forward in the roll-out.
That is important because, in terms of the use of smart meters across the board to collect aggregate data for marking our system as a whole, we probably need about 70% penetration to get the figures right under the circumstances. We are way away from that, and we will be for a quite some time. We may well have a situation where our smart systems are racing ahead, but the means of communication on those smart systems are not, thus the smart system itself is compromised in the medium to long term.
Amendment 100 seeks to put some options in front of the Government. It states that
“the Secretary of State must produce and lay before Parliament a report setting out options for securing a guaranteed roll-out of smart meters to at least 70% of premises in all regions and nations of the United Kingdom by 2025.”
That is a reasonable target to try and aim for. Not that we would necessarily adopt this approach right now, but the amendment then states that the report must consider, among other options, different ways of rolling out smart meters for the future.
Members may push back substantially on obligatory smart meter installation. Do we transfer responsibility for the remaining smart meter roll-outs from the retail companies, perhaps to distribution network operators? That would put an end to the current system, in which literally four or five installers could go up the same street on the same day to try to install smart meters on different premises, depending on what retail company the person was with. There would instead be one body that would be installing smart meters in the various regions, and doing so in a much more systematic way. By the way, a lot of the to-ing and fro-ing that goes on when someone switches supplies to their smart meter, and how that can be transferred in an operable way, would be ended as well.
I am on record from about 2015, I think, saying that it was not a bright idea to have given the roll-out of the smart meter system to energy retailers, and that it should have been given to distribution network operators at that particular point. That is now a widespread view, and, looking back with the wisdom of Captain Hindsight, it is something that we should have considered. We can still consider it now because smart meters are not owned by the companies that install them. They pretty much all employ third parties, which actually own the meters in people’s homes, to run them. We could relatively easily —without transferring the ownership of the smart meters from those third parties—transfer the contracting agent from energy retail companies to district network operators.
The Minister is a little less advanced in years than I am, and may not remember the switchover in television lines from 405 to 625. That was basically accomplished by saying, “You can keep a 405 line television—you don’t have to have a 625 one—but it might not work in a few years’ time if you have kept your 405 TV.” The switchover was accomplished pretty much in good time, and universally. We are asking the Government for a report that considers all the different options for getting us out of the hole that we are in regarding the smart meter roll-out, to ensure that smart meters can fully play the role that we want them to play in our future low-carbon energy economy, and that we have the means to do that and can confidently come back with something better than the flog-a-sickly-horse routine in the amendment.
I hope the Minister will have a positive response to the amendment. I feel so fed up with yet again considering a Bill that just seeks more of the same that I am tempted to press it to a Division if he is unable to come substantially towards what we are saying regarding the future of smart meters. It is that important. I am trying to ensure that some Government Members go home so that we can win, but obviously it is up to the Minister how far he can come towards that view regarding the future of smart meters.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
The amendment is eminently sensible. I speak with the experience in my constituency before Christmas of what is now referred to as the great gas flood of Stannington. Hundreds of millions of litres of water entered the gas system, causing 3,000 properties to have water ingress, in some cases it was so harsh that water was coming through gas appliances and hitting the ceiling with force, or wrecking the whole interior of people’s properties. I mention that because almost every property involved in the crisis had to have its meter replaced. To the exasperation of some of my constituents, their smart meters had to be replaced with refurbished meters. We had issues with the second-hand meters that were put in.
I am still carrying out conversations with the energy companies because there were differences in the units of some of the meters. Some measure cubic metres and some measure cubic feet, which means that some people are getting a very good deal at the moment on their energy, because their energy company does not know that they changed the unit, and some people are getting awfully ripped off. It is very complicated, but because Cadent, which did a fantastic job during the crisis to make people’s homes safe and to ensure that the faulty gas meters were immediately replaced—I have no problem with that—did not have any agency providing smart meters, there was a missed opportunity to upgrade or keep them.
We have actually seen a decline in the number of smart meters in my constituency because of that major incident. We know that such incidents will probably become increasingly likely and with climate change there are likely to be more problems with water ingress—although hopefully not at the scale we had in my constituency, which left constituents without hot water and gas for many weeks during a very cold snap when there was snow on the ground.
Andrew Bowie
I thank Members for their contributions on amendment 100. The situation in the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam’s constituency over the winter period sounds dreadful. My heart goes out to all those affected and I would be happy to arrange meetings with the relevant Minister in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, if she has not already had one, because it cannot be that we find ourselves in that situation again, should that event take place—we hope not—in her constituency or, indeed, in any other constituency throughout the country. That has to be addressed.
On the amendment more widely, I like to think of myself as a glass half-full, positive guy. I think we should be celebrating the fact that more than 32.4 million houses, homes and residences in the United Kingdom now have smart meters. That is nearly 54% of homes and we should celebrate that. Indeed, on the point about older smart meters not being able to connect to the network, I am happy to tell the Committee that more than 12 million SMETS1 meters have now been connected to the Data Communications Company’s network, which enables communication with all energy suppliers so that consumers regain and retain their smart devices. That work continues at pace and, indeed, I can inform the Committee that through the wonders of modern technology the upgrade is happening remotely without consumers needing to take any action themselves. That is all good stuff and I hope people can join me in being positive and congratulate the work of officials and everybody in the industry who has been in charge of the roll-out thus far.
I thank the hon. Member for Southampton, Test for his amendment. I know that it comes from the right place and that he wants to see an increase in the pace and scale of our smart meter roll-out in the United Kingdom, for all the reasons he set out. I reassure the Committee that His Majesty’s Government have already taken measures to normalise smart metering as the default meter offer across Britain. Indeed, under the smart meter targets framework, which began only in 2022, energy suppliers have minimum annual installation targets for smart meters until the end of 2025. We believe that will drive the highest possible levels of smart meter coverage. I know, however, that the hon. Gentleman disagrees. Those targets are binding and Ofgem is responsible for regulating suppliers against them, with a range of enforcement tools at its disposal.
Energy suppliers have a long-standing obligation to take all reasonable steps to install a smart meter when a meter is fitted for the first time or an existing meter needs to be replaced. Their installation targets for 2022 and 2023 have already been set and, as the Committee may be aware, we have recently consulted on suppliers’ minimum installation targets for 2024 and 2025—here is a number that we can all cheer about—at coverage levels over and above the 70% called for in the amendment. We are currently considering the evidence provided by stakeholders and industry, and the Government will issue their response in due course. That work supersedes the need for the report requested in the amendment.
The amendment also calls for the report to consider the transfer of responsibility for the smart meter roll-out to distribution network operators. The Committee might recall that the option of a DNO roll-out was carefully considered and consulted on in 2009, at the start of the smart meter programme, when another party was in government. It was discarded as an inappropriate model for a roll-out that has, rightly, always prioritised consumer benefits. Who am I to question the decisions of the then new Labour Government?
A supplier-led roll-out will deliver more benefits for Great Britain. Metering has also been the responsibility of energy suppliers which, unlike network operators, have an existing direct relationship with their consumers. To change the approach at this stage would slow down roll-out progress considerably, reducing the crucial resultant benefits for consumers and our energy system.
Finally, the amendment proposes mandating smart meters or a date-limited phase-out of non-smart meters. You will be interested to learn, Ms Nokes, that such an approach to installations would present considerable practical barriers. For those who refuse, energy suppliers would in practice need to obtain forced powers of entry, which would be costly and highly intrusive for consumers.
I have already described the comprehensive regulation in place that is driving industry to deliver the highest levels of smart coverage, without mandating consumers. There remains good consumer demand for smart meters and, as I have explained, making smart meters mandatory is unnecessary and counterproductive, given the current high levels of uptake. I hope that, given the reassurances I have provided, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Let me turn briefly to clause 170. As I have said, 32.4 million energy meters in homes and small businesses across Great Britain were smart by March 2023. That is a significant achievement in one of the most ambitious upgrades to our energy infrastructure for a generation, but there is still more to do.
On 1 November 2023, the regulatory powers that the Secretary of State has in relation to smart metering are due to expire. Those vital powers have been used by the Government to establish and develop the framework necessary to support a successful smart meter roll-out across Great Britain, giving households and small businesses the information they need to feel in control and manage their energy usage. Clause 170 would extend by five years, from 1 November 2023 to 1 November 2028—we will be coming to the end of this period of Conservative government then—the period within which the Secretary of State can exercise the powers in relation to smart metering contained in the Energy Act 2008, the Electricity Act 1989 and the Gas Act 1986.
The powers provide Government with the ability to modify energy licence conditions and documents maintained in accordance with the energy licence conditions—for example, industry codes—and create new licensable activities or veto a proposed transfer of the whole or any part of a smart meter communication licence. The clause does not change the nature of the existing powers. So far, the powers have enabled the Government to drive significant progress in the smart meter roll-out, realising huge benefits for consumers and our energy system. They have been used to require energy suppliers to use smart meters that are interoperable and meet robust security requirements, and to ensure that consumers receive energy efficiency advice at the point of installation.
Clause 170 will also enable us to deliver the four-year targets framework for smart metering through to December 2025, ensuring that energy suppliers’ smart meter installation targets remain robust and effective, after which we must maximise the long-term benefits of a Great Britain-wide smart metering system, following a post-implementation review.
There is robust evidence from the roll-out to date that consumers are achieving sustained savings using their smart meters and in-home displays. Unleashing the full potential of smart systems and flexibility in our energy sector will reduce the costs of managing Britain’s energy system by up to £10 billion a year by 2050. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Dr Whitehead
The Minister is not just a glass half-full guy; he is a glass overflowing and going down the side of the glass on to the table kind of guy. I am not sure I can work out the best metaphor. This is like someone being just over halfway round a marathon course and noticing that all the officials have gone home and everyone else has packed up. This person is unlikely to complete the course because everybody has gone and they are not quite sure how to get to the end, but then they sit by the side of the road and say, “Yippee, I have done 14 miles. That is a great achievement. We should all be proud of ourselves for doing that.” That was never the purpose of the smart meter roll-out; the purpose was to get full smart meter coverage in the shortest time. That was what the Government said at every stage of the process.
Some very early consultations took place when the last Labour Government were in office, but no legislation was passed and no formal material about legislation was published until the Conservatives had been in power for two years. I really do not think it is much to do with the previous Labour Government, though it was a good try.
I am disappointed, to be honest. The Minister has given us a Panglossian version of the smart meter world, but I am sure he knows that things are not well at all in that world. There is no gainsaying the really hard work of officials, companies, installers and everyone who has done such good, hard work to get the roll-out complete—I am not saying anything about them. I am saying that the original goal of the smart meter programme is so far off beam now as to make it really difficult to achieve its original purpose in the time that is left for us to get our act together and get those smart meters in place.
I know we are all about to go home—I hope we are all about to go home—so I hope the Committee will not feel too bad about being detained for another five minutes to have a brief Division on this amendment, because it is important that we put on the record that we really want something more to happen in respect of smart meters than is currently happening. I am sure, Ms Nokes, that you will be in the unenviable position of having to decide on the tie and where we go next. That is an exciting duty. [Interruption.] Oh yes, sorry—the SNP spokesman slipped out unnoticed; that is not like him at all. We would still like to push the amendment to a vote, even though it is likely to be negatived, for the reasons I have outlined.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Backbench Business
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Obesity and Fatty Liver Disease
(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
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of preventing obesity and fatty liver disease.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone.
I am truly grateful to the 19 right hon. and hon. Members from across the House and from all parties who supported the application for this debate. I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on liver disease and liver cancer, and I thank all my colleagues in the group for their steadfast support. I am also grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this debate.
The debate’s aim is simple and straightforward: to sound an alarm. This country faces a crisis—a fatty liver disease crisis. One in five people in the United Kingdom suffer from fatty liver disease. That is a quite incredible figure, and it is driven by obesity. Two thirds of the adult population of the United Kingdom are overweight or obese. It is worth noting that liver disease is often associated with alcohol misuse, but liver disease is increasingly being driven by obesity. I am also pleased that today is the global awareness-raising day for non-alcohol related steatohepatitis, or NASH. Some 150 million people across the world suffer from NASH, which is the most severe form of fatty liver disease.
As I said, two thirds of people in Britain are obese or overweight; that is the third highest obesity rate in the whole of Europe. The rise in obesity is having a hugely detrimental impact on the nation’s health. Fatty liver disease is a problem in itself, but it is also closely related to cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and a multiplicity of cancers. It is also worth noting that liver disease has a huge impact on economic development, and that obesity is directly related to that. Obesity costs the UK economy £58 million a year and is a huge drain on the national health service, which is already under huge pressure.
If obesity is a huge problem, how do we tackle it? There are a number of ways. First, we can promote healthy living, and more active lifestyles in particular. To cite my own example, at one time, I prided myself on not having set foot in a gym, but now we have a tread- mill at home and I use it regularly. That is becoming more regular all the time.
Secondly, there is the issue of junk food. Fat, sugar and salt are present in all junk foods. The UK is the largest consumer of ultra-processed food in Europe. I was startled to see a television report earlier this week focusing on the prevalence of emulsifiers in food. I was not aware of what an emulsifier was; for a moment, I thought it was a kind of paint. Emulsifiers are basically used to keep food together, and they are totally unnecessary from a nutritional point of view. Nevertheless, there are serious studies and concerns about the potential harm that the use of excessive emulsifiers in so many of our foods can have on our health. The food industry needs to address that in a significant way. However, it is no good simply to leave everything to those in the food industry. They exist to make profit and that will inevitably have an impact on their profitability. There is therefore a need for a level playing field, and Government regulation is vital. That must be a significant agenda for the immediate future.
The Government really have to deliver on existing policy commitments. We are still patiently waiting for them to implement the 9 pm watershed plans to protect children from junk food advertising on television and online. There also needs to be a ban on advertising multi- buy junk food deals according to that cut-off point. I was encouraged this morning by a visit to Parliament of children from Nant Y Parc Primary School in Senghennydd, near Caerphilly, in my constituency. The children were aware that this is a serious issue. Everyone, especially children, loves junk food, but a discipline needs to be imposed. There is nothing wrong with an occasional burger or KFC, but it must be now and again and not a regular part of their diet. It is important that, time and again, that is stressed to young people at all levels of education.
When we look at liver disease outcomes in care, the huge variation across the country is striking. Inequalities are hugely geographically focused. If we look at non-alcoholic fatty liver disease deaths in England, we see that the north-west of England has a far higher mortality rate than the west midlands. In general, liver disease mortality rates are four times higher in the most deprived areas.
We hear a lot about levelling up these days, but not so much about the need to level up healthcare and life expectancy. That is why I am calling on the Government to lay out a clear set of policies to level up liver disease treatment and make real their declared ambition to narrow the gap in healthy life expectancy. That is why I say that a prompt, thorough and comprehensive review of adult services in England is vital if we are to successfully tackle huge inequalities and geographical variations in liver disease treatment, outcomes and care.
Let us be honest: liver disease is a silent killer. It is often diagnosed very late, by which time the damage is irreversible and treatment is not really an option. Sadly, three quarters of people currently diagnosed in hospital following emergency admission cannot be given effective treatment or intervention because it is too late for them.
Since the launch of the British Liver Trust’s campaign last year on early diagnosis, we have seen improvements in pathways for early diagnosis across the four nations. I pay tribute to Pam Healy, the chief executive of the British Liver Trust, and her extremely active team for their work in raising the issue across the country and, in particular, in Parliament. I was extremely pleased that more than 90 Members of Parliament from the Commons and the Lords attended a liver health test we organised in January. I have to say, some MPs were judged to need intervention.
I am also pleased that the Government have made some progress on this issue, and that only yesterday the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence announced its decision to recommend the use of fibroscans as an option to assess liver damage in primary care. I welcome that positive step forward. I urge the Minister to put real emphasis on early diagnosis by adopting a new pathology pathway and ensuring that every community diagnostic centre has a facility to make an assessment of fibrosis—no ifs or buts, it should be available in every community diagnostic centre.
I urge the Minister to recognise that this is not an England-only issue; it affects the whole United Kingdom, and we need to look carefully at good practice in the devolved nations. I am a Welsh Member of Parliament who represents a constituency in the south, and I am very pleased that my own health board, the Aneurin Bevan University Health Board, pioneered a pilot project that laid the foundations for the Welsh Government to introduce the all-Wales abnormal liver blood test pathway, and they have recently published a quality statement on tackling liver disease. This was the first part of the United Kingdom to do so, and I hope that the other nations in the UK will follow that good example quickly. That work and other good practice is worth examining carefully and emulating throughout the whole United Kingdom.
Fatty liver disease is a clear barometer of the nation’s health. The obesity crisis in our country is clearly exacerbating health inequalities and causing real harm to people. It is resulting in a significant cost to the NHS and having a hugely detrimental economic impact. I therefore urge the Government to take immediate action to tackle this issue coherently and systematically. I very much look forward to the Minister’s positive reply.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. The debate can last until 3 o’clock, and I am obliged to call the Front Benchers no later than 2.28 pm. The guideline limits are 10 minutes for the SNP, 10 minutes for His Majesty’s Opposition, 10 minutes for the Minister and two minutes at the end for Mr David to sum up the debate. There are three highly distinguished Back-Bench Members seeking to speak in this debate. I hope you will allow each other enough time to get your contributions in. The first exemplar of that will be Maggie Throup.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and to participate in this extremely important debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) on securing the debate, which is timely because it coincides with International NASH Day. International NASH Day aims to raise awareness of fatty liver disease and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis, which affects more than 115 million people globally. Up to one in five people in the UK have non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, and almost 12% of the population have NASH. I am sure it comes as no great surprise to anyone, as the clue is in the name, that one of the key causes of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease is obesity.
The need to tackle obesity as a priority was first identified by the Government in the early 1990s in the “Health of the Nation” White Paper. In the three decades since then, there have been policies such as the soft drinks industry levy, the pilot of the “Better Health: Rewards” scheme in Wolverhampton, restrictions on product placement and calories on menus, which have been introduced effectively with the aim of reducing obesity. I am particularly proud that many of those measures were introduced or reinforced during my time as public health Minister. However, despite those policies being implemented successfully, the obesity rate continues to increase, so more needs to be done.
A recent report by the Obesity Health Alliance argued that obesity is the new smoking. That comparison was reinforced yesterday by the announcement of £40 million to pilot ways to make the newest and most effective obesity drugs accessible to eligible patients. That is an acceptance that obesity is a disease and should be treated with drugs, in the same way that lung disease is treated with drugs. Following that argument through, immense effort has gone into stopping smoking measures and reducing exposure to cigarettes, so immense effort should now be put into reducing everyone’s exposure to foods that are more likely to cause obesity—that is, ultra-processed foods. The delayed 9 pm watershed and action on two-for-one offers will do just that.
Research by the Obesity Health Alliance shows that 72% of people believe a 9 pm watershed on junk food adverts should be brought in during popular family TV shows. The measure has public support, so why hold back? When will the Minister’s Department introduce those important measures? Provisions are on the statute book, so let us just get on with it.
Statistics provided by the House of Commons Library highlight how obesity is steadily getting out of control in England. Since 1993, the proportion of adults in England who are overweight or obese has risen from 52.9% to 64.3%, and the proportion who are obese has risen from 14.9% to 28%. It is no surprise that the UK has the third highest obesity rate in Europe. Furthermore, the alarming rate of child obesity is of real concern. Data from the national child measurement programme outlines that in England, 10.1% of reception-aged children —aged four to five—were obese in 2021-22 and a further 12.1% were overweight. At ages 10 to 11—in year 6—23.4% were obese and 14.1% were overweight. Obesity prevalence is highest among the most deprived groups in society: children in deprived parts of the country are twice as likely to be obese than their peers in more affluent areas.
The health and economic impacts of obesity are devastating. Obesity is a force multiplier on fatty liver disease, cardiovascular disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes and cancer, and that, of course, puts ever-increasing pressure on the NHS. The combined cost of obesity to the Treasury—that is, to the NHS, the Department for Work and Pensions, and the economy as a whole—is projected to be £58 billion a year. I feel, however, that that could be a conservative projection, as there are many factors that have not been taken into consideration.
Those who are obese cost the NHS twice as much as those who are not. It has been estimated that those who are obese take four extra sick days a year, which equates to 37 million sick days across the UK working population. Those stats are clearly very concerning, and there needs to be a collective effort to tackle this widespread problem. If action is not taken now, we will embed ill health and low productivity into generations to come.
Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease is triggered by a build-up of fat in the liver, and as its name suggests, it is usually caused by obesity. Early-stage non-alcoholic fatty liver disease does not usually cause any harm. However, if left untreated, it can lead to serious liver damage, including cirrhosis. Some 90% of liver diseases are preventable, and in the UK, the most common causes of cirrhosis are excessive alcohol consumption, hepatitis and NAFLD.
What can we do to avert this public health crisis? As individuals, we can all take measures to help us to avert the risk of NAFLD—simple measures including eating a balanced and healthy diet, and in particular, not eating ultra-processed foods. Additionally, we can all increase our activity levels, as the hon. Member for Caerphilly indicated. It has been estimated that if those who are overweight or obese lost just 2.5 kg—5½ lb for people of my generation—that could save the NHS £105 million over the next 15 years. I am sure that most people would want to lose more than just 5½ lb, and doing so would save the NHS even more money—5½ lb, or 2.5 kg for the younger ones in the room, is not a lot.
We need to do more to promote early diagnosis and raise awareness of the different causes of liver disease. It would be remiss of me, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for diagnostics, not to mention the possible impact of community diagnostic centres. Community diagnostic centres provide a quick and easy way to access checks, tests and scans, providing routes to early diagnosis. The recent announcement by the Department of Health and Social Care that fibroscan services will be made available in 100 community diagnostic centres is welcome. It could result in thousands of people being made aware of the poor condition of their liver, which could still be reversible.
Despite that positive news, I would like to see an expansion of liver testing in areas where obesity levels are higher and the risk of fatty liver disease is more extreme. Lives are saved when diseases are caught early. I am interested to hear the Minister’s comments regarding the expansion of fibroscan services to all CDCs. My own local integrated care system in Derbyshire is currently categorised as green, indicating that an effective pathway is in place for the early detection and management of liver disease. Will the Minister therefore look at emerging good practice throughout the country and emerging good practice pathways at the ICS level, with a view to establishing a national pathology pathway to accelerate early diagnosis? Government policy towards obesity over the last 30 years has mainly been focused on individual responsibility, rather than mandatory policy, but we can all see that that is not working.
Monday night’s BBC “Panorama” highlighted just how harmful ultra-processed foods are, and how they contribute massively to diet-related ill health. However, they are among the most profitable foods that companies can make. I know that this may sound unlikely, but there is a willingness among food manufacturers to reformulate; however, as the hon. Member for Caerphilly said, they want a level playing field. Sadly, no company is willing to step out of line and lead the way, yet if the consumption of ultra-processed foods continues at the current rate and the obesity rate continues to rise, our nation will be economically poorer and very unhealthy. To be bold, I believe this country is addicted to ultra-processed foods, similar to the way it was addicted to smoking in past decades. We tackled smoking addiction by intervention; it is now time to tackle ultra-processed food addiction by intervention too.
To conclude my remarks, this debate has undoubtedly helped to raise awareness of the problem of obesity and the detrimental impact it has on people’s health, including liver disease, as well as the economy and the NHS. Clearly, more needs to be done to tackle the health inequalities of obesity and improve early diagnosis of fatty liver disease. The Government need to be bold and brave for the sake of the individual, the NHS and the economy.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you for calling me, Mr Hollobone; it is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. It happens very often that you and I are here in Westminster Hall, but perhaps for different reasons and to participate in different ways.
I thank the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) for leading the debate. It is always a pleasure to hear his calm voice, and today he put the case forward admirably. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup), who brings a vast stock of knowledge from her former role and her deep interest in these subjects. Whenever she speaks in Westminster Hall or the main Chamber, it is always with facts, evidence and a determination to get the answers.
As the vice-chair of the APPG on liver disease and liver cancer, I am pleased to be here to draw attention to the liver disease crisis, but I am not pleased that there is a crisis of liver cancer in Northern Ireland. One of the great things about the Minister—I do not say this to give him a big head or anything—is that whenever we ask him questions, his first intention is clearly to respond in a positive fashion. That being the case, I have a couple of asks for him.
I am also pleased to work alongside the two shadow Ministers, the hon. Members for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) and for Bristol South (Karin Smyth). I was saying beforehand to the Labour shadow Minister that very often—most Thursdays—she, the Minister and I, and sometimes others, have this shift in Westminster Hall. We are always pleased to come and to participate. As we look forward, I hope that we can work together and emerge with a good practice for obesity prevention and the early diagnosis of fatty liver disease, which I hope can be replicated across the whole of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
I was delighted to sponsor the British Liver Trust’s “Check your liver health” event in Portcullis House in January. The hon. Member for Caerphilly referred to that event. The turnout was great; he was absolutely right. I thank all MPs who took the time to attend. I personally got the all-clear. That does not mean that someone can sit back and say that everything is all right; they have to continue to do the right things, so that they do not fall back.
I would like to give some background on the situation in Northern Ireland. I always like to give a Northern Ireland perspective, because I believe that that enriches the debate, even though it probably replicates what everybody else is saying as well. When the SNP shadow Minister speaks, he will give Scotland’s perspective, and I very much look forward to hearing that also. In Northern Ireland, nine out of 10 liver disease cases are preventable. That is the point that we start from and it is what the hon. Member for Caerphilly said in his introduction: we can prevent liver disease if we eat right—if we have the correct diet—and we exercise, so it is really important that we do that. There is also the question of alcohol. I am not against anybody drinking alcohol, but if people do that, they should do it in moderation.
Liver disease deaths have doubled in the last two decades, which contrasts with the trends in other chronic diseases, which have decreased or stabilised. While liver disease and liver cancer have increased, other diseases have fallen. We cannot ignore that. There is an onus on Government. Government cannot do everything for everybody, but they can raise awareness and perhaps give some of the direction that is needed. It is important to recognise the trend.
Liver disease deaths in Northern Ireland increased by 39% during the period encompassing the pandemic—between 2018 and 2021. That was primarily driven by obesity and alcohol misuse. The pandemic was part of the reason for that, but there is also an onus on all of us individually, including me. We need to exercise and do the right things. Northern Ireland does have a non-alcohol-related fatty liver disease and haemochromatosis pathway in development, so there is a policy by the HPSS—health and personal social services—in Northern Ireland, but progress is slow.
I am, as always, keen to ensure that the Minister here uses his good offices to encourage the devolved Administrations to be active, and I am sure that that will be the case. The Minister himself is proactive. I know that he has had regular contact in all his ministerial roles—in Education and now in Health—and I hope that discussions with those in Northern Ireland continue. Has he had an opportunity to have discussions with the Department of Health back home in Northern Ireland? If not, may I request that he do that?
I have spoken before on the importance both of raising awareness of the risks of obesity and of early diagnosis. People with excess weight and fatty liver disease are at higher risk of cardiovascular disease and a wide range of cancers. People who are obese are two times more likely to develop liver cancer, three times more likely to develop colon cancer, two and a half times more likely to develop high blood pressure and five times more likely to develop type 2 diabetes. I declare an interest as a type 2 diabetic. I will give an idea of what that involves. When I was diagnosed as a type 2 diabetic some 15 years ago, I weighed 17.5 stone. I was a big fat puddin’—I am talking about myself, so I can use this terminology. I lost some four stone and have kept that weight off. But people have to work at it; that is what the hon. Member for Caerphilly was saying. Diet control helped for a while, but my diabetes—this debate is not about diabetes—is now medication-controlled. It is important that people are aware of that issue. That included me, who came through that particular episode some years ago.
British Liver Trust research reveals huge geographic variation in access to patient care pathways for the early diagnosis and management of liver disease in primary care. Furthermore, removing stigma surrounding the impacts of liver disease is crucial. That is why it is important that we all recognise that we have to encourage people. It is so alarming that 49% of liver patients surveyed by the British Liver Trust in October 2022 reported experiences of stigma from healthcare professionals. When someone comes to our office, our job as MPs is not ever to be judgmental; it is to help the person with whatever the issue may be. I think that there is a case for healthcare professionals to have the same attitude when people come to them. This should be not about judgmental attitudes, but about saying, “What can we do to help?” People should look at it that way.
I congratulate the Royal Victoria Hospital liver support group in Northern Ireland on its recent 25th anniversary. Its chairman, Jim Kilpatrick, is a constituent in a neighbouring constituency, and he is a passionate campaigner who has been instrumental in improving support for patients in my constituency of Strangford—indeed, in all areas. I commend him for that and for the support of carers across Northern Ireland. There was a debate in the Chamber earlier about carers. I think we all have experience of that—I know my family have. Jim Kilpatrick presents an understanding and supportive stance on behalf of the support group, persuading, assisting and making life better, as well as focusing attention on and driving the strategy. The Royal Victoria Hospital liver support group is a network of volunteer liver patients and their carers who provide confidential, compassionate, emotional and psychological support for all adults, teenagers and children coping with a liver condition. Their vital work is a lifeline to my constituents and patients across Northern Ireland.
Liver disease is a silent killer, largely asymptomatic in its early stages. Three quarters of patients are diagnosed with cirrhosis in hospital, when it is too late for effective treatment. The hon. Member for Caerphilly emphasised the need for early diagnosis, and he is right. Risks can be drastically reduced through early detection and through diet, exercise and drinking in moderation. Let us be honest—there should be moderation in everything. It is so important that we raise awareness.
I give sincere thanks to the British Liver Trust, which has been in constant contact with my office and has been so insightful in the information it has provided. I want to put on the record how grateful I am to the trust for providing me and my staff with the information to prepare for this debate. I look forward to working with it in future as we collaborate to address this important issue and improve the health of constituents. I am convinced that the trust would be keen to work alongside the Minister and his Department. Has he had an opportunity to discuss these matters, to work in partnership and to help each other.?
I am also keen to receive an assurance that any co-ordinated plan or strategy here on the mainland can be delivered by the regional Administrations, including the Northern Ireland Assembly. I am confident and convinced that the assurances I seek will be given. I say this not as a political comment, but when it comes to many things, particularly health, one of the great things is that we can work collaboratively and better as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is always better to share our details, our practices and our experiences. By doing so, we can move forward together and make sure that across this great nation we can all improve our health.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Hollobone, for giving me the opportunity to speak for the second time in two days.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on liver disease and liver cancer, on securing this debate. As vice-chair of the APPG, I am concerned that the UK Government lack a coherent strategy for tackling the worsening liver disease public health crisis, which disproportionately affects our most disadvantaged and marginalised communities. Ealing’s mortality rate for men under 75 is among the worst in the country.
Despite being a leading cause of premature death in the UK, liver disease has not been appropriately prioritised by the Government and was overlooked in the major conditions strategy. Fatty liver disease is a public health emergency. Liver disease mortality rates are outpacing those for other major conditions, such as diabetes or respiratory conditions, which have stabilised or improved over the past 40 years. I am not complaining that those conditions have improved, but it is a fact that liver disease has not been taken seriously. Liver disease deaths are four times higher in the most deprived areas, where risk factors such as obesity, alcohol misuse and viral hepatitis are more prevalent. Poverty and deprivation are key drivers of both obesity and fatty liver disease in the UK.
Ethnic minorities have higher obesity rates than the national average, and south Asian populations are particularly vulnerable to developing fatty liver diseases due to a combination of genetic and societal risk factors, but limited action is being taken to accelerate earlier diagnoses of liver disease within primary care and community settings to reach the communities most at risk. Will the Minister commit to an urgently needed review of adult liver services to tackle the huge inequalities in liver disease outcomes and care across the country? Early detection and diagnosis is key, as all previous contributors have indicated clearly and eloquently. Four in five people with NASH, the most severe form of fatty liver disease, are undiagnosed. The prognosis of NASH is often poor with patients at high risk of liver failure and liver cancer, which has a five-year survival rate of just 13%.
My local integrated care system—North West London ICS—is currently categorised as green, which indicates there is now a fully effective pathway in place for the early detection and management of liver disease. Sadly, due to societal, ethnic and deprivation reasons, my constituency and Ealing lag behind other areas. I urge the Minister to look at the positive examples of ICSs, such as North West London ICS, and see how the great work they are doing can be replicated more widely across the country. I also ask the Minister to expand the work needed to ensure equitable access for all to those improved pathways.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) for securing today’s important debate, and for the comprehensive manner in which he introduced the issue and highlighted the scale of the problem. We have had a very informed debate. Obesity is a problem on an escalating global scale, with Scotland’s obesity levels among the highest of OECD countries. Indeed, I was until recently classed as obese myself, and despite reducing a bit I am still in the overweight category. I am going the right way, but I have a long way to go to catch up with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who has made much greater headway than I have.
Obesity vastly increases the chances of a person developing a range of lifetime diseases, including heart disease, type 2 diabetes and several other forms of cancer, as well as non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, which is what we are focusing on. Obesity reduces quality of life and ultimately contributes to premature death. As we have heard, the UK is very much the sick man of Europe in terms of obesity, and sadly rates of obesity are even higher in Scotland than in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Two thirds of adults aged 16 and over in Scotland are overweight, and nearly one in three people are obese, placing them at higher risk of premature death, chronic disease and a multitude of cancers. Obesity doubles the risk of developing liver cancer.
The causes of obesity are complicated and vary from person to person. They include the genetic make-up of a person and biological and social factors. It is also heavily influenced by health inequalities. A report by Public Health Scotland found that for children from the most deprived backgrounds, the risk of obesity was almost three times higher than for those from the least deprived—21% versus 8%. There can be no denying that poverty is a significant factor, as are housing, education, access to open spaces, exposure to advertising and the availability and sale of unhealthy foods, all of which affect whether we can be active or eat healthily and consequently have an impact on the risks of developing obesity. The predominant driver in all those factors is what we eat, which is in turn shaped by our environment. For example, for many living in poverty, eating healthy food is a secondary consideration to just eating at all —or even heating their homes. Access to healthy food should be a right, not a privilege.
I am therefore delighted that the Scottish Government have committed to restricting less healthy food promotions and to improving the availability of healthier options when people are eating out in their Out of Home action plan. Their support has also meant investment of more than £400,000 in the last five years to help smaller businesses reformulate common products to make them healthier. That plays an important role in improving dietary health by removing hundreds of millions of calories from Scottish food and drink products. We could, and need to, do a lot more on that if we are going to improve people’s diet, and local companies that are rising to the reformulation challenge should be commended for their efforts.
More needs to be done, however. Minister Jenni Minto announced in Holyrood last month that the Scottish Government will undertake a consultation on regulations to restrict promotions of food high in fat, sugar and salt. That is a vital next step in fixing the broken food system, which is driving the obesity and fatty liver disease crisis in Scotland. So I echo other hon. Members’ points and ask the Minister to commit to delivering prior policy commitments that are still to be implemented. Those include implementing the 9 pm watershed to protect children from junk food advertising on TV and online, and banning multi-buy junk food deals. Those measures enjoy huge public popularity, and I believe they would be effective tools.
The Scottish Government are at the forefront of efforts to strengthen obesity prevention and improve earlier detection of liver disease, including through pioneering use of intelligent liver function tests in primary care, which are now being piloted in sites across England as well. The British Liver Trust categorised my local health board, NHS Lothian, as green in autumn 2022, as it now has a fully effective patient care pathway for the early detection of liver disease. That is important because the mortality rate for chronic liver disease in my local health board is lower than the national average in Scotland, at 15.3 versus 17.9 per 100,000, reflecting the growing momentum for action to help improve liver disease outcomes and save lives.
Scotland is also at the forefront of harnessing new diagnostic tools to improve earlier detection of liver disease. The hon. Member for Strangford and others have spoken about how detection is important. We must prevent people from becoming ill in the first place if we really are to tackle the problem. However, by the time people are diagnosed, we often find they are too far down the pathway to make significant improvement.
The intelligent liver function testing pathway developed by the University of Dundee uses an automated algorithm-based system to further investigate abnormal liver function test results on initial blood samples from primary care. Intelligent liver function tests represent a nearly threefold increase in the diagnosis of liver disease and are estimated to be saving the NHS more than £3,000 per patient with an abnormal liver blood test. Indeed, iLFTs are now being piloted in Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Coventry, Liverpool and north London, and the roll-out of such technology is welcome. I urge Ministers to look at other examples of good practice from the devolved nations to help improve patients’ pathways for early detection and management of liver disease. Will he commit to delivering a new nationally endorsed pathology pathway for early diagnosis of liver disease that incorporates intelligent liver function testing in primary care?
In conclusion, we know that obesity doubles the risk of developing liver cancer, which is now the fastest rising cause of cancer death in the UK. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease is now the fastest rising cause of hepatocellular carcinoma globally. In Scotland, liver cancer has seen the largest increase in mortality rates—38%—of all cancer types over the past decade, and liver cancer is now the fastest rising cause of cancer death in the UK. Unfortunately, Scotland has the highest incidence of liver cancer among our four nations.
The liver disease public health crisis disproportionately impacts our most disadvantaged and vulnerable communities. In 2021, chronic liver disease mortality rates in Scotland were 5.8 times higher in the most deprived areas than in the most affluent. Individuals in deprived areas are more likely to develop liver disease, be hospitalised with it and die from it than those in affluent areas. We must improve early diagnosis and prevention if we are to tackle this issue. That also means tackling poverty and health inequalities.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and to respond on behalf of the Opposition health and social care team. As the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) said, it has been a very well-informed debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) for the exceptional work that he and the other members of the APPG on liver disease and liver cancer are doing to raise awareness of this vital issue.
As has been demonstrated, rising obesity poses a profound threat to public health. We have heard today—from Strangford to Erewash, and from Southall to Linlithgow—that this is an issue across the United Kingdom. Before we hear from the Minister, I want to say how impressed I am with how everyone has tackled their own health and wellbeing through exercise, and I will certainly try to do better the next time I come to one of these debates.
As we have heard, obesity can impact on cardiovascular disease, as well as a variety of other conditions, not least non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. The British Liver Trust estimates that deaths as a result of liver disease have doubled in the last 20 years—that is a sobering statistic—with mortality rates are four times higher in the most deprived areas, as we have heard. Childhood obesity is also rising at the fastest rate on record, with 39% of obese children estimated to be suffering from non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Not only is obesity rising and costing lives, but it is also causing people to live less prosperous and enjoyable lives and harming our economic productivity, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly said.
The case for action could not be clearer. If we want to lead happier, healthier lives, while also reducing pressure on our NHS and turbocharging our economy, we must get serious about addressing the obesity crisis. That can be done only by placing prevention at the heart of our work.
Despite our best efforts, individuals cannot tackle obesity alone. Too often, we have a narrative of personal responsibility, but it fails because it promotes harmful, outdated ideas about our bodies, and that is particularly true for women. We need a step change in how we tackle obesity as a society.
I am proud that Labour’s recently launched health mission set out a blueprint for shifting the focus of Government Departments, the NHS, and wider public services to prevention. Most relevantly to today’s debate, we want to give every child a healthy start in life, with a children’s health plan.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) for her work as a public health Minister—she knows of what she speaks. We would want to implement that long-overdue 9 pm watershed for junk food advertising on television and to ban paid advertising of less healthy foods on online media. That would come alongside establishing fully funded breakfast clubs in every school and a balanced and broad national curriculum with a wide range of compulsory physical activities.
That is the start of our vision for Government. For far too long, public health problems such as obesity have been viewed as falling exclusively under the purview of the Department of Health and Social Care but, as we have heard, the causes of obesity are multifaceted. It is about what we eat, but also about our access to green spaces, our genetics, the money in our pocket, our access to community care, and so much more. If we want to tackle obesity and, by extension, this disease, every cog in the Government machine must recognise its responsibilities.
For that reason, Labour has committed to embedding health in all policies through the creation of a cross-departmental mission delivery board. That would bring together all Departments with an influence over the social determinants of health and act as an accountable body akin to the Climate Change Committee. That is the kind of bold, ambitious thinking that will define the next Labour Government.
I am aware that those suffering, or at risk, from NAFLD want action from the Government now. With that in mind, I would like the Minister to address some questions. First, in relation to obesity and prevention more generally, the Government recently launched their consultation for the major conditions strategy, singling out six major groups of health conditions but, unfortunately, there is no mention of obesity in the consultation documents, although cases of several of the diseases mentioned are rising in part because of obesity. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister set out what role preventive obesity policy will play in those major disease conditions. Similarly, concerns have been raised that there was no mention of liver disease in the strategy. Will he therefore set out how he plans to address increases in liver disease, and specifically NAFLD?
I also want to press the Minister on health inequalities. The British Liver Trust describes liver disease as, effectively, a barometer for underlying health inequalities. It points out that the main risk factors—obesity, alcohol misuse and viral hepatitis—are most prevalent in marginalised communities, and we heard some shocking statistics from my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma). That goes back to the point made earlier about the wider determinants of health. Unless the Government implement a coherent strategy for health inequalities, we will never be in a position to drive down liver disease.
The Minister will remember that in 2019 the Government pledged to extend healthy life expectancy by five years by 2035 and reduce the gap in healthy life expectancy by 2030. The clock is ticking. Not only is the target on track to be missed, but things are actually getting worse—inequalities in life expectancy are widening. Given that the Government binned their health disparities White Paper, will the Minister provide an update on how he plans to reverse the health inequalities that have widened on this Government’s watch?
We know that liver disease is largely asymptomatic in its early stages and that diagnosis is essential in providing effective treatment. As we have heard, one in four people diagnosed with alcohol-related liver disease in hospital die within 60 days, and there is evidence of huge geographical variation in the pathways for early diagnosis. Given that grim picture, what assessment has the Minister made of current diagnostic provision for liver disease, and how will he improve that picture so that, no matter where someone lives, they can receive a timely diagnosis?
In conclusion, our current trajectory must not be allowed to continue. Unless we address obesity and rising fatty liver disease, more lives will sadly be lost, and our health service will come under existential pressure. Labour stands ready and waiting to address this crisis, but we cannot afford to wait. The Government must get to work now. We look forward to hearing from the Minister.
The Minister for Health and Secondary Care (Will Quince)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) for securing a debate on this hugely important issue, and of course to the all-party parliamentary group that he chairs for its important work on tackling liver disease and liver cancer. I am responding on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien), who is the responsible Minister in this area. Nevertheless, I will try to give as full a response as I can.
The Government welcome the opportunity to discuss the prevention of obesity and fatty liver disease, and I thank all hon. Members who have contributed today—particularly the hon. Member for Caerphilly, my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) and the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma), who did not have to be here but who came to raise their points.
I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash for all her work as a Minister at the Department of Health and Social Care. She is a passionate advocate for tackling obesity and the conditions that result from it. She and I know that we do not agree on everything—we have had many a debate on this issue—but we both believe passionately in tackling it, because we know how important it is.
As has been said, liver disease is one of the most significant killers of working-age people in England, and I suspect that that is the same across our United Kingdom. In the last two decades, around 90% of liver deaths in England have been related to lifestyle and unhealthy environment, and the vast majority are alcohol related. These diseases are responsible for a four-times increase in liver mortality over the past few decades. The populations most at risk from non-alcoholic fatty liver disease are those living with obesity or type 2 diabetes.
Alongside its role in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease— I appreciate that the focus of today’s debate is obesity—obesity is also the leading cause of other serious non-communicable diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease and some cancers, and it is associated with poor mental health. As the hon. Member for Caerphilly pointed out, this represents a huge cost to the health and wellbeing of individuals, and also to the NHS, wider society and our economy. It is estimated—this must be correct, because the hon. Gentleman and I have exactly the same figure—that obesity costs the NHS £58 billion. That is a loss to the economy and, importantly, a reduction in the quality of life of people up and down the country.
Although obesity rates have been relatively stable over the past few years—in fact, over the past decade—they are still stubbornly high. About one in four adults, and one in four children aged 10 to 11, live with obesity, so the prevalence remains far too high. I am particularly concerned about childhood obesity, not just because I am a Minister at the Department for Health and Social Care, but because I am a former Children’s Minister and Minister with responsibility for school sport.
Two weeks ago, I represented the United Kingdom at the World Health Assembly. I spoke to representatives of about 25 other countries, and it was interesting how many times obesity came up as a challenge that they are facing too, so we need to work together. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, it is not just about our United Kingdom; we need to work together and share best practice globally to make sure we are tackling this issue together. I raise the point about children because, from my work as Children’s Minister, especially on early years, and as a father of two children, I know too well that habits are formed really young, so we have to tackle this issue at the earliest possible point.
Data shows that people in lower income groups are more likely to be living with obesity than the rest of the population. Nevertheless, the issue is prevalent across all groups, as the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall said. The hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) raised health inequalities and the major conditions strategy, which sits with the Minister for Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately). I know she would be happy to meet hon. Members to discuss the major conditions strategy ahead of the interim report, which I understand is due to come out this summer. I am happy to commit my ministerial colleagues to meet hon. Members, as I do regularly.
Obesity is a complex problem that is caused by many factors, and there is no single solution. My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash and I have had many debates on this issue, and there are many ways that we can tackle it. It is multifaceted and complex, and therefore the solution will inevitably be somewhat complicated.
I am not particularly fond of talking about my own health. I often hear people say that they prefer the expression “living with obesity” to “obese people”. When we come back to Parliament and are sworn in again, they take our photo. I was 19.5 stone at the time of the 2019 general election, and they still, to this day, use that photo. I turn up at events and people say, “You don’t look anything like your photo.” The point I am trying to make is that I know how difficult these things are; it is a daily battle to lose weight and keep it off. It is a mixture of diet and exercise. I passionately believe that we need to empower people to make better, healthier life choices. There are interventions that we are making and further interventions that we should make to tackle this issue. I assure the House that, although this is not my direct ministerial responsibility, I am a passionate but realistic advocate of the measures that we can and should take to tackle obesity.
I genuinely believe that a mix of actions at a local and national level are required to help with the prevention of excess weight gain and to promote healthy behaviours. We know that obesity does not develop overnight; it builds up over time. It is frequently about excessive calorie consumption. It does not have to mean overeating hundreds of calories a day, although we all do that sometimes, and we then have to overcompensate in another way. It often means small amounts of excess calories, consumed regularly, which add up for adults and children, so there is a big education piece that we need to do. We are doing that, but we need to do more.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash said, yesterday, as part of action to treat those already living with obesity, the Government announced plans for a two-year pilot, backed by £40 million, to look at ways of expanding access to new weight loss drugs outside of a hospital setting through primary care that more eligible patients will be able to benefit from, therefore reducing their risk of obesity-associated illness.
One area that is certainly within my ministerial responsibility is our work on research with the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Obesity is one of our national healthcare missions; we are determined to look at some of the innovative solutions out there to help people to take control, and empower them to make healthier life choices and control their weight.
Wayne David
I note that the Minister said there is Government support—in a limited way, at the moment—for weight loss drugs. I welcome that, but I am cautious; there is a real danger of placing too much emphasis on drugs as a way to lose weight. They can be in addition to other measures, but those other measures are critical. I welcome the Minister’s views on that, but there is a danger of putting too much emphasis on those drugs.
Will Quince
The hon. Gentleman raises a good point; I totally agree. As further details are published, he will see the current criteria for accessing those drugs. The reality is that more and more are coming on stream, and they will be part of our arsenal and one of our tools to help people tackle obesity and make healthier life choices.
What do we also know about the drugs? Well, we know that they are effective. However, they are effective only for as long as someone takes them, unless they change their lifestyle and behaviour. Anything we do in relation to drugs must be alongside an education piece, and supporting and empowering people to make healthier life choices. Ultimately, and ideally, we do not want people to be on drugs for the rest of their lives where it is not necessary. We want the drugs to be a tool and enabler to help and support them to get to a place where they can manage their own weight. That might be difficult for some people and they may struggle to do so, and for others it may not. It is just a helping hand; the hon. Gentleman is right.
As hon. Members made their contributions, I scribbled down the actions—just in my own mind—that the Government have taken over the past few years, such as calorie labels on food in supermarkets. I know that that made such a difference, because when I am looking, I make active choices. I look at the traffic light system, I look at the calories, and I look at the amount of salt and sugar in these products; and doing so enables me to make healthier choices. That is important. There is the calorie labelling on food sold in large businesses, including restaurants, cafés and takeaways, which came into force back in April—not uncontroversially.
Maggie Throup
My hon. Friend is right that there is a lot more information there for people to make informed decisions on, but there are also hidden contents that people are not being informed about, such as the ultra-processed foods. Products may be labelled as low in fat, but they have other products in them to ensure that they will taste okay and still be low in fat. We need to not just look more at the overall messaging on packaging, but ensure that we reduce some other items in the products that are causing the obesity crisis.
Will Quince
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; we are constantly learning more. At the moment, I do not think there is a definition of an “ultra-processed food”. There has been a lot of work. We are learning more and more about the issue and it has recently exploded into the public domain. We need to ensure that more people are aware of and being educated about what is actually in their food, and that they are looking at labels. If we go back 20 years, we were all very much alive to E numbers —does everyone remember E numbers?—which no one looked at before. Now, we often look over the back of the packaging to see the number of E numbers in our products. The more that the public are educated and informed so that they can look out for these things, the better. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough will be happy to discuss this further with my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash. I know that ultra-processed foods are an issue about which the public are concerned, and we certainly have more to do on food labelling.
Jim Shannon
The Minister always brings good responses. The SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day), made a comment that I endorse totally, because it is something that I hear from my constituents every week. With respect, many people can look at the labels and see what they mean, but what do they look at first? They look at the price, because they are trying to make a meal for their family. What drives them will be, “What can I afford to do?” I am conscious that the Minister has been very constructive in his responses, but there must be a wee bit of reality as well.
Will Quince
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. He is absolutely right; not everyone has the luxury to make choices, and they will often have to go for the cheapest products or products that are available in their area when others might not be. That is why it is so important that we continue the work with industry on reformulation.
Personally, I have been more of a convert to Government action in this area. The soft drinks industry levy has been hugely successful. The industry was already doing a lot of that work. Nevertheless, the levy has nudged and pushed it further in the right direction—but there is more work to do.
I would push back ever so slightly on a couple of the comments that have been made today about industry not wanting to do this. It is not moving at the pace that we want, expect and need it to, but it is doing it. The sugar content of cereal is down by about 15%, and it is down by about 14% in yoghurts and fromage frais. We need industry members to go further, but they are doing it because they are responding directly to what their customers and consumers are telling them they want, and to people actively choosing healthier products. However, we have more to do on reformulation and working with industry.
We will also introduce restrictions on the advertising of less healthy products before 9 pm. I will answer the question on that from my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash in just a moment. The major conditions strategy call for evidence is open, and, as I said, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent will gladly meet colleagues to discuss that.
There is also the piece of work around supporting people with weight management, such as the NHS digital weight management programme, the weight loss drug programme and pilot that we announced yesterday, which I just spoke about, and the better health campaigns—including the NHS weight loss app Couch to 5k, which, if anyone has not tried it, is a great way of getting into running, and Active 10. There is also the NHS health check, which includes checking on BMI, encouraging people and giving them the tools to take control of their health.
Then there is the research piece. As I say, this is one of our healthcare missions. Obesity is right there at the top; we want to see the newest and most innovative products and medicines coming forward and being used first in this country.
The hon. Member for Bristol South is absolutely right that this cannot just be an issue for the Department of Health and Social Care; it must be a cross-Government issue. I remember when I was the Children’s Minister and had responsibility for school sport: looking at school sport investment and premiums, at the upskilling of primary school PE teachers in particular, and at the holiday activities and food programme, which was specifically targeted at children in receipt of free school meals.
I remember visiting some eye-opening educational programmes. In one example—I would love to get a number of parliamentary colleagues to try this experiment—there was range of soft drinks, from a Monster energy drink through to flavoured water, and a big box of sugar cubes. The children were asked to put against each product the number of sugar cubes they thought it contained. You would be amazed, Mr Hollobone, how many children put six cubes against the water and very few against the Monster or the full-fat Coke, despite the can of Coke containing something like six cubes of sugar. In schools, we are also promoting the daily mile, the healthy schools programme and healthy school meals. That is all important work, but do we need to do more? Of course we do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash asked about the delay to policies, specifically to the restrictions on advertising and promotions. I understand her frustration but the delay to advertising restrictions allows the Government and regulators to carry out certain processes necessary for the robust implementation of the restrictions. Those processes include carrying out consultations, appointing a frontline regulator, the laying of regulations and the drafting of guidance. She asked specifically when that is coming in; it will be in October 2025. She also asked about the volume price promotions ban, which was delayed due to the unprecedented global economic situation. I do not know the answer and I do not want to mislead her. The legislation states October this year, but I do not know latest position, so I will ask my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough to write to her.
Wayne David
I think there was an intake of breath in the Chamber when the Minister mentioned October 2025 for the introduction of the limit on advertising. Is there any way that he would support measures to circumvent the excessively long delay? I think the will is there; it is a question of just dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s to ensure that everybody is on board. That can be done relatively quickly, if there is the political will.
Will Quince
As much as the hon. Gentleman tempts me to make Government policy on the hoof, as it is not my policy area I will refrain from doing so. I will ask my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough to speak directly with the hon. Gentleman to see if there is any way that process could be accelerated.
I will turn to early diagnosis and community diagnostic centres—a subject raised by the hon. Members for Caerphilly and for Bristol South, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash. I am a massive fan of community diagnostic centres. In fact, I was in one in Roehampton this morning.
NHS England is playing a key role in helping to reduce preventable deaths from liver disease, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash alluded to, it has begun the process of fibroscans through community diagnostic centres. There is a £2.3 billion programme to increase the number of CDCs across the country to 160. The commitment so far is that 100 of them will be diagnosing liver disease by March 2025. If we can accelerate that, we will. We are accelerating the CDC programme. That is within my gift, and I will look at that closely to see what is within the art of the possible. Of course, I am keen to see what we can do to boost diagnostic capacity to diagnose liver disease and improve earlier diagnosis, which leads to improved health outcomes.
The hon. Member for Strangford asked about work in Northern Ireland. We do so much work across the United Kingdom on public health, research and medicines, as well as in the health space. I do not know the specific answer, because it does not sit within my portfolio, but I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough will be working on that on an all-nation basis. The spirit of collaboration is important when it comes to these issues.
A lot of poor health is preventable; that point has been made a number of times during the debate. People instinctively want to be and to stay healthy. Sadly, however, most people who are diagnosed with liver disease at a late stage, when it is less treatable, are often diagnosed during an emergency hospital admission. That has to change, and the Government are determined to take action to make the needed changes. As the hon. Member for Caerphilly said, today is International NASH Day—a day to raise awareness of non-alcohol-related fatty liver disease and its more advanced form. I hope that by debating the topic, we have raised awareness of that hugely important issue, and of the disease.
Wayne David
We have had an excellent debate. The Chamber has heard contributions from six Members, and although they have been from different political parties there has been a unanimity among them about the importance of the issue and some of the measures that need to be put in place urgently to tackle the fatty liver disease crisis.
The Minister has made some positive remarks, it has to be said, but I hope that he will report back to his colleagues to ensure that the issue is given greater priority within the Department of Health and Social Care. He has made certain commitments to provide information and make representations on the basis of what has been said. I hope he will do that—I think he will.
It is essential that we move forward, as far as possible on a consensual basis. We all recognise that this is a huge issue that has to be addressed as a matter of urgency. To do that we need the will of the Government to work with others, to come forward with a policy, as they now have, and to develop that policy to address the situation in the not-too-distant future.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of preventing obesity and fatty liver disease.
World Ocean Day
(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
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered World Ocean Day.
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Mrs Latham. Our ocean, our largest ecosystem, is a precious natural resource and for too long we have taken it for granted and somewhat abused it. Over and illegal fishing in some parts of the world, pollution, including by chemicals, plastics and nutrients, and overdevelopment along coastlines have all contributed to our ocean not being as healthy as it should be. There is an urgency to tackle global climate change, and given the right focus, support and investment, the ocean is one of our best and most cost-efficient nature-based solutions. As an island nation, our national seas also have huge social and economic value for the UK and especially for our coastal communities. The ocean is our bright blue hope.
Today is the 31st anniversary of World Ocean Day, which gives us the opportunity to highlight and support the implementation of worldwide sustainable development goals and to foster public interest in the protection of the ocean and the sustainable management of its resources. This year it specifically raises awareness and supports the goal and the commitment from global leaders to conserve at least a third of our land, water and ocean by 2030, known as 30x30. It also builds on the high seas treaty agreed in March this year by a number of nations to protect the world’s biodiversity in international waters.
The historic high seas treaty took 10 years of negotiations to reach agreement. It aims to safeguard and recuperate marine nature and provides the ability to more easily realise the target of establishing 30% of the global ocean as marine protected areas by 2030. The treaty also strengthens governance of the world’s ocean by providing the framework to manage the ocean and sustainably use its biological resources. Prior to the treaty, there was no means for nation states to declare marine protected areas beyond their national jurisdiction. The new treaty supports a holistic ocean governance framework as a means to implement the obligations to protect and preserve the marine environment, as included in the United Nations convention on the law of the sea.
That is an important step as the ocean covers 70% of the planet’s surface area and produces around 50% of the oxygen we breathe. It has a hugely significant role to play in slowing down the rate of climate change. Since 1978, more than 90% of the Earth’s increased heat and 40% of carbon emitted from burning fossil fuels have been absorbed by the ocean. Furthermore, it is estimated that the ocean has absorbed between 25% and 30% of all carbon dioxide emissions caused by human activity, making it the largest carbon sink in the world.
The sea is home to most of our biodiversity. According to the United Nations, 3 billion people globally rely on the ocean for their livelihoods, and around 200 million people are employed either directly or indirectly in related industries. However, the UN also states that carbon emissions from human activity are causing ocean warming, acidification and oxygen loss.
A debate about the ocean could cover many topics, including plastic, sewage, chemical or nutrient pollution, marine protected areas, fishing, and renewable energy opportunities and risks. I am sure that some hon. Members will discuss those today. I want to focus on blue carbon and ocean-based solutions to climate change, which, worryingly, are disappearing and require urgent global restoration and protection. We also need to conserve and use ocean resources sustainably, as healthy oceans and seas are essential to human existence and life on Earth. For too long our ocean has been the missing part of our path to net zero. It is essential that Governments across the world take rapid action to increase the ocean’s critical role in tackling climate change.
Our oceans offer significant solutions that can mitigate and combat climate change. It is predicted that blue carbon ecosystems could sequester and store around 2% of UK emissions per year. There is huge potential lying beneath our waters, which have yet to be fully realised.
According to estimates from the Office for National Statistics, the UK’s salt marshes and subtidal muds and sands alone captured at least 10.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2018—the real amount could be as much as six times higher. That carbon sequestration, according to the ONS, is of significant economic as well as environmental value—valued at more than what is earned from exploiting our oceans for oil and natural gas.
Let us not forget that our coastal salt marsh areas can help protect against flooding from sea level rise if properly restored, maintained and managed. Seagrass meadows provide among the most productive ecosystems in the world. An area the size of a football pitch can support more than 50,000 fish and more than 700,000 invertebrates, which is good news for our marine habitats and fishing communities around the UK. One acre of seagrass can sequester 740 lb of carbon per year, or 83 grams of carbon per square metre, which is the same amount emitted by a car travelling 3,860 miles.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is not enough understanding of how important blue carbon is or of the crucial role that the ocean could play in absorbing and capturing carbon? It is, therefore, great that we have the opportunity to debate it today.
Sally-Ann Hart
Yes, I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. One issue is that we do not yet have enough data and research to truly evaluate the amazing role that blue carbon can play.
UK coastal habitats such as seagrass and salt marsh provide an estimated £48 billion of economic benefits to society, despite occupying only 0.6% of the total land area. Based on available data, the Office for National Statistics values the UK’s marine natural capital assets at £211 billion, so protecting and restoring the UK’s marine natural capital assets preserves more than the environment. It has value for people and the economy.
Maintaining and, more importantly, restoring and improving marine ecosystems to sequester carbon is vital in mitigating climate change. Fully restored, our coastal ecosystems could capture emissions equivalent to one third of the UK’s 2028 emissions and save an estimated £6.2 billion in spending on artificial flood defences by 2050. It is essential that the UK Government take further measures that protect and restore our marine areas, ensure greater research and provide more sustainable funding for all types of blue carbon and carbon dioxide removal. But no Government can fund entirely the actions needed to unleash the full power of nature. They need to look carefully at how they can encourage and facilitate private sector funding.
There are new fledgling organisations such as the social enterprise Bright Tide, which was founded by Harry Wright. Bright Tide is doing a sterling job in working with businesses to address urgent climate and biodiversity challenges around the world. I ask the Minister to outline what the Government are doing to recognise and facilitate funding to protect ocean nature-based solutions.
Also, will the Minister update the House on the measures that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has taken to ensure that blue carbon habitats are restored, increased and properly protected? Our ocean is incredibly important to coastal communities such as mine—beautiful Hastings and Rye—because many livelihoods, from fishermen and tourism to aquaculture and renewable energy, depend on a healthy, clean and functional coastal environment to ensure long-living and sustainable industries. Without careful planning and review of impacts from human activities, both the environment and livelihoods are at risk.
I chair the all-party parliamentary group on coastal communities and the all-party parliamentary group for the ocean. Coastal communities and our national seas are interlinked—co-dependent. The APPG for the ocean’s first inquiry, into blue carbon and ocean-based solutions to climate change, produced an excellent and comprehensive report, “The Ocean: Turning the Tide on Climate Change”, and three of our eight recommendations were echoed in the Government’s recent environment improvement plan. They include our recommendations to remove trawl or dredge zones, which can destroy marine ecosystems and disturb seabed carbon stores, from UK MPAs; create highly protected marine areas; and include more aspects of marine carbon storage and sequestration, specifically seagrass and salt marsh habitats, in the UK greenhouse gas inventory.
Our report also highlighted that investing in coastal and ocean-based solutions can considerably boost industry and the economy in coastal areas. As an MP for a coastal community and as chair of the APPG on coastal communities, I recognise at first hand the solutions that the ocean can offer in mitigating and combating climate change. I also recognise the added value, huge benefits and potential that ocean-based solutions can have for coastal communities in creating new skills and jobs in tourism, ecotourism, seabed mapping activity, the renewable energy industry, environment and ecology, aquaculture, fishing and so on. Nature is the most cost-effective solution in combating climate change, as well as providing added value. We must unleash her power.
The report also highlighted that blue carbon and ocean-based solutions are often neglected in conversations about climate change, despite the fact that the destruction of marine habitats such as seagrass—the wonder grass—may be of greater consequence than land-based destruction such as deforestation. Why are they overlooked? Part of the reason is the lack of understanding, research and data. Certain types of ocean-based solutions, such as those that could occur in the open ocean or seabed, are even less understood and require greater mapping to understand the clear benefits. It is time to review our ocean, not only as something that needs protecting, but as a useful tool—a living, breathing organism that can help us tackle climate change.
Finally, with the increasingly diverse uses and potential uses of the ocean and the growth in areas designated for marine conservation, there are clearly growing spatial pressures on our ocean—spatial squeeze. That may have an effect on our more traditional industries, such as our fishing fleets. I know that the fishermen of Hastings and Rye are concerned about that. We must ensure that offshore renewables—windfarms and tidal stream energy for example—blue carbon habitats, marine protected areas, fishing grounds, aquaculture, cables, oil and gas all coexist, where possible, so that there is space for all without detriment to traditional industries such as fishing or to the marine environment. There is an argument to be explored for a new approach to marine spatial planning that involves the co-management of our national seas and greater accountability for regulators. I would be keen to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that.
By protecting, researching and investing in ocean-based solutions and blue carbon habitats, the UK can ensure that our net zero targets are met, that coastal communities can benefit from significant opportunities and that the ocean becomes an active player in climate change mitigation. We all need to work together to ensure that that happens.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Latham. I warmly thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) on securing this debate on World Ocean Day. She is a great champion of coastal communities in general and Hastings and Rye in particular.
As we have heard, the ocean covers 70% of the Earth’s surface and is the largest carbon sink on the planet. To take just one example, salt marsh and seagrass habitats can store and hold massive amounts of carbon for thousands of years, so there is huge potential for ocean-based solutions—so-called blue carbon—to play a key role in delivering net zero and protecting the climate from disaster. At the same time, well-managed blue carbon projects can help deliver levelling up through the creation of new high-paying, high-quality jobs in coastal communities.
The massive potential of blue carbon was highlighted in the report, “The Ocean: Turning the Tide on Climate Change”, published last year by the APPG for the ocean, of which I am a member. In it, we pointed out that we cannot hope to succeed in our ambitions on combating climate change without using ocean and land-based carbon removal solutions, so we need better mapping of the blue carbon habitat within the UK’s exclusive economic zone. We also need more research, more data and a better understanding of the capacity of the marine environment to absorb and store carbon. That goes beyond salt marshes and seagrass to include ideas such as seaweed cultivation and ocean alkalinity enhancement.
To harness the potential of blue carbon, it is vital that we do more to protect the marine environment and the biodiversity it contains. That brings me to plastic. Plastic pollution is one of the great tragedies of our time. Plastic is a versatile material that has many benefits, but we must find a way to reduce its use, recycle more of it and, above all, ensure it is disposed of responsibly. It is shocking that, less than a century after its invention, such a vast volume of plastic has made its way into every corner of the ocean. I feel genuinely disturbed when I see pictures of the impact that it has on wildlife, including of young birds that perish because they are fed plastic by their parents, which mistake it for food. We have to do something about the situation. I know the Government are taking a strong, leading role in tackling the scourge of plastics pollution and have passed some of the world’s first laws against microbeads in personal care products, which was a big step forward.
I also welcome the fact that the Government pioneered the Commonwealth Clean Ocean Alliance to seek the international action that is so crucial. They are also leading the Global Ocean Alliance to meaningfully protect 30% of land and sea by 2030, but there is a vast amount of work that still has to be done. For example, we need to consider how to reduce the flow into the sea of microfibres from clothing. In that regard, I commend the campaign led by my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), the National Federation of Women’s Institutes and the Marine Conservation Society for filters that catch such fibres to become mandatory in new washing machines sold from 2025.
Let us also see the delivery of the Government’s long-promised extended producer responsibility and deposit return schemes to promote plastic recycling, reuse and responsible disposal. I have mentioned that to the Minister many times; she knows my views. I hope that the frankly chaotic situation with the Scottish National party version of DRS will not jeopardise getting a workable scheme in place across the whole of the UK.
Above all, we must have more concerted action globally if we are to tackle the problem of plastics pollution in the ocean effectively. Progress on that is being made, too: the draft high seas treaty agreed in March signals a real intent to ensure that human activities in the high seas are consistent with conservation objectives. I urge the Government to engage energetically in securing the international treaty on plastics that is vital in driving forward the rescuing of our oceans.
In conclusion, we have a responsibility to act against plastic pollution and the destruction of precious ocean habitats. Together with our overseas territories, we are stewards of one of the world’s largest marine estates. This nation built a vast empire largely because we had the most powerful Navy on the planet, which has protected our shores and our freedom ever since it was founded by Alfred the Great over 1,000 years ago. Our continuing links with the overseas territories are one of the last legacies of that once-mighty empire, so let us use those ties of friendship and history to work with overseas territories to push forward with further protection for the seas and oceans that have played such a seminal part in our island’s story. It is essential that we safeguard them for the future.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Latham. I echo the words of congratulation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) to my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) on securing this debate. This issue is enormously important, and does not get enough time in this House. Even as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on global deforestation, I find that we are too apt to look at what happens on land, and not apt enough to look at what happens at sea. This is a very appropriate and topical debate, particularly on World Ocean Day, as my hon. Friend said.
I am pleased to see the progress that has been made in recent months, including the treaty that was agreed back in March and the output of the various conferences of the parties of the past 18 months. I hope that the next COP, due to take place in the United Arab Emirates this autumn, will drive improvements to our approach to tackling biodiversity loss. I equally hope that it will reflect the need to protect ocean biodiversity.
I will focus on three aspects of the challenge we face: the need to protect more, the need to restore more, and the need to enforce more. Let me start with protection. The Minister knows of my concern to ensure that we accelerate our work on marine protected areas and highly protected marine areas; we debated that in this Chamber only recently. That is fundamentally important both for our nation and for the globe, because protected areas are about not just the UK but important areas of marine ecology around the world.
But let us start at home. We are making progress. The work that the Government have done on Dogger Bank and in other areas is very welcome, as is their ambition. As the Minister knows, my only concern is the pace. We need to do more, because although we have marine protected areas, most people would judge them not to be particularly well protected at all. In those areas, we still allow large industrial trawlers to scan the seabed with huge mechanical equipment, causing all kinds of damage and destruction. That may be appropriate in some parts of the sea, but it is inappropriate in our marine protected areas. It is particularly important that we accelerate the process that has started. As we have left the common fisheries policy, we have the freedom to apply proper protections. We will renegotiate our fishing arrangements with the European Union in the next couple of years. I suspect that those in Brussels are probably expecting things to carry on much as they are. We must ensure that is not the case, and that we really do take a significant step forward in applying UK-focused and ecology-focused rules to our fisheries, particularly those that are in need of much greater protection.
There is also the issue of the highly protected marine areas, which are much smaller. A substantial part of the seas around the United Kingdom are covered by our protected marine areas. The highly protected marine areas are much smaller, which is as it should be, because very little fishing should take place there at all. They need to expand too, and the Benyon review was very constructive in that respect. Of course, Lord Benyon is now very much at the heart of delivering this.
We must not make the same mistake as Scotland, which pressed ahead without engaging and involving the fishing communities. I take the view that the fishing communities of this country benefit from measures that look after our marine life and particularly our fisheries, because without those, the fishing communities have no livelihood. I do not think that our fishing fleets in the UK have anything to fear from a more robust approach to marine protection, because they see their fisheries disappear when we have huge industrial boats scouring the ocean in areas where we should be restoring fish stocks, not allowing them deteriorate still further. The benefit of highly protected marine areas, where there is virtually no take at all, is that they really do give the fish and the other life a chance to recover. In fact, fish stocks in areas around the most protected areas, where there is genuine enforcement, are now better as a result, and fishing fleets benefit from that.
I will continue to push the Minister, who I know is very sympathetic on this issue, and, through her, her officials to get on with this. They have made a good start, but I still see no reason why we cannot deliver a complete ban on bottom trawling in marine protected areas and deliver a significant increase in the area covered by highly protected areas in the time left in this Parliament. Our fishing communities and our ecology would benefit greatly if we did.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye mentioned the 2030 goals—the 30x30 protections. We have to play our part in ensuring that other countries do the same as us, and help them where they need political, financial or other support to do so. It is all well and good the UK protecting our waters, but if others do not do the same, we clearly do not achieve anything like what we need to achieve globally. Our ocean is a global asset. We have to protect it. We need to support other countries in enforcing proper protections in their marine protected areas, and in banning the most damaging fishing practices in those areas, so that see the ecology recovers.
This does work. When we put in place greater protections, numbers rise. We need only look at the whale population. Whales were in serious danger of extinction, but since positive steps were taken globally to ban whaling, numbers have started to surge. People can go and see these magnificent creatures all around the world now. If we take similar steps to provide appropriate protections in key areas of marine ecology—I am talking about excluding fishing, not from whole seas, but in key areas—we will benefit enormously. I am thinking of areas such as Galapagos, where until recently there was a genuine threat from some of the big, global fishing fleets that were sailing around the Pacific. We need to ensure that absolute, proper protection is in place, backed by enforcement; I will come back to enforcement in a moment. This is not just about protection of what is there; it is also about restoration of habitats that have been lost. My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet are absolutely right: there are opportunities to recreate habitats in the ocean, which can make a real difference to supporting and restoring marine life.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye mentioned seagrass. There is clearly an opportunity for us in the United Kingdom on that. There are interesting projects taking place around the UK to begin to restore some of the seagrass that has been lost. We have lost something like 90% of our seagrass beds. We need to restore those, and we need to create the space for that to happen, because that helps marine species to recover. I would also mention kelp. If she has seen the extraordinary photography in the recent BBC “Wild Isles” series, she will have seen just how extraordinary kelp forests around the UK are. They, too, have disappeared to much too great an extent. We need to reverse that.
This does not really apply to our shores, but we must also focus on mangroves, because mangroves in coastal waters around the world have disappeared at an alarming rate, and they play a hugely important part both in the ecology of coastal areas and in protecting local communities against rising sea levels, floods, storm tides and the rest. I would therefore like—this does not fall within the Minister’s Department; it falls more to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office—those elements of our aid budget that go on supporting ecological projects to support the restoration of mangroves around the world. Of course, there are big, global efforts taking place to do that, and to restore other marine habitats.
One of the most extraordinary projects I have come across in the last couple of years is the work being done by Mars Sustainable Solutions, and community groups working with it around the world, to restore coral reefs. The before and after for such projects is quite extraordinary. If a simple piece of netting, which looks like the inside of a chip pan, is placed on the seabed near a reef that has deteriorated, the reef regrows quickly, so there is a real opportunity to restore some of what has been lost.
Too many of our reefs are in danger, and too many have suffered damage from changes to water temperature, boats and the impact of mankind, but it is possible to restore reefs more quickly than one might imagine. Across the piece, we have an opportunity. Replanting seagrass, supporting the regrowth of kelp, and restoring coral reefs and mangroves can all play a part in capturing carbon, helping to restore local habitats and making the ocean healthier, so we as a nation should be putting as much effort as we can into helping the restoration of those habitats around the world. As I say, I speak as somebody who campaigns on deforestation and, indeed, on reforestation, but we must not forget marine environments.
Then we come to the issue of enforcement, because all our efforts are pointless if illegal operations destroy marine habitats again. Along with the treaties that have been agreed over the last 18 months, the good work being done on restoration, and what I hope our Government and others will do to put in place proper protections in marine protected areas, we also need really robust enforcement, because we have too many illegal and unregulated fishing operations doing real damage to fish stocks and marine environments around the world. Often they are carried out by vessels that simply go dark. Law-abiding, decent fishing vessels go around and do their stuff with proper tracking systems onboard, so we know where they are. If I opened up an app on my phone, I could probably see where most of the vessels are. Those that do not play within the rules disappear—they go black. That cannot be tolerated, because then however many rules we put in place, damage is still being done.
We as a country need to play our part as we move to the next stage in the negotiation of global agreements. We have done some really good work in putting together frameworks for the future, but they now need to be translated into action if we are to deliver the protections and the constructive approach that have been agreed by countries around the world. However, in order to do that, there has to be proper enforcement of what is put in place. My message to the Minister is this: when it comes to illegal and unregulated fishing, we need to make sure as a nation that we take a lead in saying that the next step is not just practical ecological measures, but the enforcement to go alongside them.
There are tools that we can use. The amount of Earth observation data is now substantial—we have satellite data for even relatively small areas. Supermarkets use Earth observation data to make sure that the products they source do not come from areas of land that have been deforested, which is great. In this country, that is being driven by our pathfinding legislation, the Environment Act 2021. We have a bit more to do, as the Minister and I discuss regularly, and I will happily help push other Departments to work with her to deliver that. But that is on land, and we need to do the same in the oceans. The technology can also be used by supermarkets to look at the origin of the fish stocks they are purchasing. It can also be used by enforcement authorities to look at what is happening—who is fishing where, and who is doing what where—and to take the appropriate action. We can also support countries that do not share our economic strength or ability to take enforcement action; that piece is enormously important. It must be a central part of what we as a nation do, going into the next stage of the various COPs and international discussions about how we turn the 2030 agreements into action. We must provide proper protection, both for restoration work and for what we have at the moment.
Those are the challenges. None of them will be easy, but they are challenges that we have to meet. As a global community, we cannot see the ocean continue to deteriorate and decline. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet is absolutely right about plastic. I happen to believe that before too long, we will end up harvesting it from the oceans. The plastic needs to be removed, but we may well find that it has positive uses, now that technology is moving on, in helping us to combat climate change through a move away from conventional fuels, for example. We may well end up having a positive reason to take that plastic out of the ocean, but we should certainly stop putting it in. We should be taking all the steps that we can to avoid the further pollution of the ocean and further degradation of marine habitats.
We have the foundations and frameworks in place for the next 10 years. They are already agreed in principle, and they now need to turn into action. That action is about protecting what we have, restoring what we lost and enforcing good behaviour to ensure that rogue elements do not get away with doing further damage to our marine habitats. That is not a small task, but I am delighted that we have this Minister in place, because she is very committed to this issue. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye on calling for this debate. World Ocean Day is a moment for all of us to think about what else we can do, individually and collectively, to protect our oceans.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I echo the congratulations to the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) on bringing forward this important debate. It has become something of an annual event to have a debate that coincides with World Ocean Day on 8 June, and it follows, as we have heard, from a recent debate on the impact of plastic in our oceans.
This year’s theme is “Planet Ocean: Tides are Changing”. The tides may well be changing, because experts warn us that we are reaching a tipping point that will bring devastating and dramatic consequences for mankind with regards to our oceans. The purpose of World Ocean Day is
“to inform the public of the impact of human actions on the ocean, develop a worldwide movement of citizens for the ocean, and mobilize and unite the world’s population on a project for the sustainable management of the world’s oceans.”
This day reminds us all of the major role that oceans play in our everyday lives. They are the lungs of our planet, a major source of food and medicine, and a critical part of our biosphere. The ocean covers the majority of the Earth, but only a small portion of its waters have actually been explored. Despite humanity’s utter reliance on it, and compared to the breadth and depth of what it gives us, the ocean receives only a fragment of our attention and resources in return. That surely has to change.
The latest estimates from the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation warn that more than half of the world’s marine species may stand on the brink of extinction by 2100. Temperatures have increased by 1.1°C, and an estimated 60% of the world’s marine ecosystems have already been degraded or are being used unsustainably. Warming of 1.5°C threatens to destroy 70% to 90% of coral reefs, and a 2°C increase means a near 100% loss—a point of no return.
The ocean occupies over 70% of the planet’s surface area and produces at least 50% of the world’s oxygen. It is a hugely significant force in mitigating climate change. Despite that, its role is most often considered as passive rather than active, but it has a significant role to play in slowing down the rate of climate change. Since 1978, over 90% of Earth’s increased heat and 40% of carbon from fossil fuels have been absorbed by the ocean. In addition, it is predicted that the ocean has absorbed between 30% and 50% of all carbon dioxide emissions caused by human activity, which makes it the biggest carbon sink in the world, as we have heard today.
I want to talk about ocean acidification. When CO2 dissolves in sea water, the water becomes more acidic. The acidity of our oceans has increased by 26% since about 1850, and staggeringly, the pace of change is around 10 times faster than at any time in the last 155 million years.
Ocean acidification reduces the amount of carbonate, which is a key building block in sea water. That makes it more difficult for marine organisms such as coral and some plankton to form their shells and skeletons and existing shells may begin to dissolve. The present-day pH of sea water is highly variable and a single organism can cope with fluctuations of different pH levels during its lifetime. The problem with ocean acidification is the sustained nature of the change, as the risk comes with the lifetime exposure to lower pH levels. Further, the rapid pace of acidification will influence the extent to which calcifying organisms will be able to adapt.
The impact of ocean acidification is not uniform across all species, but a more acidic environment will harm marine species such as molluscs, corals and some other varieties. Marine organisms could also experience changes in growth, development, abundance and survival in response to ocean acidification. Most species seem to be more vulnerable in the early stages of life. Juvenile fish, for example, may have trouble locating a suitable habitat. Research suggests that ocean acidification will also be a driver for substantial changes in ocean ecosystems this century. Those changes may be made worse by the combined effects of other emerging climate-related hazards, such as the decrease in ocean oxygen levels—a condition known as ocean deoxygenation—which is already affecting marine life in some regions. Ocean acidification also has the potential to affect food security, coastal protection, tourism, carbon storage and climate regulation because more acidic oceans are less effective in moderating climate change. To reduce the impact of ocean acidification, we need to improve our air quality, develop sustainable fisheries management practices and sustainably manage habitats, as well as establishing and maintaining marine protected areas, about which we have heard a lot today. Currently, only around 8% of our oceans are protected. We need to do more, but on a global and international basis.
A recent YouGov survey of 1,696 adults found that almost three quarters of people in the UK say ocean life needs more protection. At this juncture, I wish to pay tribute to Sir David Attenborough, whose “Blue Planet” programmes brought the ocean world into our living rooms and showed us the wonders and the beauty of our oceans in such an educational and breathtaking way. He also warned us that the living world cannot operate without a healthy ocean—nor can we. The ocean may connect, sustain and support us all, but, according to the UN,
“its health is at a tipping point and so is the well-being of all that depends on it.”
The UN hopes World Ocean Day will help inform the public of human actions on the ocean and develop a worldwide movement to protect it and unite the world in seeking to sustainably manage our oceans, making this is an important day on the global calendar.
I will end with the wise words of Sir David Attenborough:
“Nowhere is more powerful and unforgiving, yet more beautiful and endlessly fascinating than the ocean.”
It is time we act globally in a way that shows we understand how important our oceans are and stop taking them for granted.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Latham. I thank the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) for securing this important debate. She and all speakers covered the issues comprehensively and laid out a number of solutions and actions that we would like to see taken forward. There is probably an element of unanimity in the debate around what needs to be done.
On World Ocean Day, we acknowledge this year’s theme of “Planet Ocean: tides are changing” as a call to intensify our efforts to understand, preserve and harness the power of our oceans. Our vast oceans hold the key to so much: biodiversity, marine ecosystems, climate change mitigation, food security, renewable energy and the future preservation of our planet. The role of our oceans in combating climate change is grossly underappreciated. More 70% of our planet’s surface is made up of ocean, which produces at least half of our world’s oxygen. Since 1978, the ocean has absorbed more 90% of the Earth’s increased heat and 40% of fossil fuel emissions, making it the world’s largest carbon sink. However, these watery giants are seldom acknowledged as active players in the fight against climate change. We need to draw focus to the power of blue carbon habitats, such as saltmarshes, seagrass meadows and mangroves. We heard extensively from other speakers on those issues.
Our seas and oceans are a rich source of biodiversity. Healthy sea beds are home to many species and drive richer marine ecosystems. Our marine environment and the creatures that call it home face numerous threats from human activity, such as damage from waste and toxins, dredging and dragging of the sea bed, and the destruction of corals, maerls and sandbanks—I could go on.
The Government’s commitment to the UN’s pledge to protect 30% of land and sea by 2030 is all well and good, but their actions do not suggest that they will get us there. The latest analysis from the Wildlife and Countryside Link—the largest environment and wildlife coalition in England—found that although 40% of English waters are designated as marine protected areas, only a maximum of 8% of English seas are effectively protected for nature. While the three new protected marine areas announced by DEFRA this year are welcome, we should note that those sites represent not even 0.5% of English seas.
The impact of humankind on our oceans cannot be understated. It has now been five years since David Attenborough’s groundbreaking “Blue Planet II” forced marine plastic pollution into the public consciousness and inspired millions across the globe to take action. His work encouraged a seismic shift in the public consciousness and helped to put plastic pollution on the political agenda. Despite that, the plastic pollution problem in our oceans continues to get worse. The UN estimates that plastic pollution in oceans and other bodies of water could more than double by 2030. Plastics pose a significant threat to the stability of our global ecosystems and human health, as evidenced by the discovery of microplastics in both seabird eggs and human blood.
It is a global crisis, and we are not exempt from responsibility. In the UK, around 14 billion plastic bottles, 9 billion aluminium and steel cans and 1.5 billion glass bottles are consumed each year. In fact, 75% of the litter found on our streets comprises drinks containers, and much of it finds its way into our waterways. Despite that, the Government’s proposed deposit return scheme is limited to certain materials, rather than creating a framework that could include more types of plastic or bioplastics in the future. Their plan to eliminate all avoidable plastic waste by 2042 is years behind schedule. Only a Labour Government will tackle waste, improve recycling rates and introduce an all-in deposit return scheme to tackle the problem head on.
Our seas are also of huge economic significance, supporting many British people through fishing, offshore energy, building, and tourism—I could go on. The Government’s lack of action is a huge threat to many of those jobs. Consider the worrying 44% drop in the levels of shellfish caught and landed in the UK in just the last year. In Teesside, the local fishing industry has reported a 95% drop in their catches of shellfish, such as lobsters and crabs. Such die-offs are devastating to nature and the fishing sector. However, when the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), addressed the House on 30 March and asked the Environment Secretary to join him in meeting the North East Fishing Collective, she responded with uncharacteristic clarity:
“I do not need to meet with them,”. —[Official Report, 30 March 2023; Vol. 730, c. 1132.]
So uncaring and callous is the Secretary of State’s attitude to our own waters and biodiversity, we can only assume she has less care for our global oceans. Talking of global oceans, let us not forget that UK overseas territories account for the fifth largest marine estate in the world. I praise Government Ministers, especially Lord Goldsmith, for the blue belt programme and Darwin initiative funding. When I spoke to many of the overseas territories in May at the UKOT conference in Westminster, they still felt that the UK did not give them a voice at global negotiations. That approach would change under Labour, as we would adopt a modern, respectful and engaged partnership with our overseas territories.
It is that sort of attitude that encapsulates how little the Government care about the impact of their actions on the livelihoods of the people they are elected to serve. The tourism industry, for example, has pleaded with the Government to help it stop sewage being dumped into waters near our beautiful beaches. Last month, nine UK beaches lost their blue flag status, including the iconic Brighton beach, which was subject to 45 sewage discharges last year. Just last month, the Government blocked Labour’s Bill that would have ended the sewage scandal and finally have made water bosses accountable.
Our coastal communities should not have to worry about water companies using their water as open sewers while the Government turn a blind eye. While it is positive to see World Ocean Day being celebrated in this way, it is now incumbent on the Government to convert warm words into concrete action and protect our blue planet.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Trudy Harrison)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mrs Latham—two days in a row—especially for such an important debate. I have enjoyed hearing the knowledge and passion of colleagues this afternoon. It is clear that all colleagues present today recognise the importance of our ocean and the urgency with which we need to take action, and with which we are taking action. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) for securing the debate, which was perfectly timed, given that today is the UN’s World Ocean Day, the theme of which, as has already been said, is “Protect 30x30”, aimed at protecting at least 30% of our blue planet by 2030.
Despite the official title of UN World Oceans Day—of course, there are many different oceans—I will refer to it as World Ocean Day, because it is one ocean, all connected. The nature and species that survive, thrive and depend on our ocean see no boundaries. There is one global connected ocean, and it makes sense to design policy responses accordingly. There have been many calls this afternoon for us to work collaboratively with devolved Administrations and internationally with other countries. I will come on to the progress that has been made.
Marine life is important. A safe, healthy ocean underpins our lives and our economies and my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye was correct to say that more must be done. More is being done, but it will not be easy. We have to tackle the triple planetary crises of biodiversity loss, climate change and pollution. Without action, plastic pollution entering the ocean is set to triple by 2040. Over 1 million species, including 33% of reef-forming corals and one third of marine mammals, are predicted to disappear entirely over our lifetimes. Meanwhile, 33% of our global fish stocks are over-exploited.
I want to pay tribute and give thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) for the sterling work that she did in my Department, setting the scene and paving the way for the Environment Act 2021, off the back of which we have the recently launched environmental improvement plan 2023, which goes into far more detail than I can possibly give here today. It is not just about oceans, but about all aspects of how we will protect our planet and halt the decline of nature by 2030.
We know that many small island—or, more appropriately, big ocean—developing states are bearing the brunt of the challenges from climate change and plastic pollution. They have been raising the alarm for decades while contributing little to the problem. Here in the UK we are seeing the effects, including estimated losses of 85% of our saltmarsh and 92% of our seagrass habitats in the last 100 years.
I also want to thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) for a most insightful and interesting contribution and making us all more aware of ocean acidification. I found her contribution staggering in terms of the acceleration that our oceans are enduring.
But we can be proud of the Government’s record. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) commend the work of Lord Goldsmith, who attended the APPG for the ocean’s annual general meeting earlier this week, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye also attended. The work is cross-Government. I am also proud of the UK’s international leadership, where we have been at the forefront of securing critically important international agreements. Just last week the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), was involved in the second intergovernmental negotiating committee on plastic pollution, demonstrating that we continue to work with other countries. At the UN biodiversity summit in December, as leader of the Global Ocean Alliance and ocean co-chair of the High Ambition Coalition for Nature and People, the UK helped to deliver a landmark global deal for nature.
The Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework commits to halting and reversing biodiversity loss by 2030, including through the 30x30 target for land and the ocean. The Secretary of State attended that conference, which made such fantastic progress, along with my noble Friend Lord Benyon, who is the Minister with responsibility for oceans. There can be no better parliamentary champion for mangroves than the Secretary of State, although his passion is matched by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), who is a fantastic champion for all things environment and nature. Once again, I heard his plea loud and clear to chivvy along officials in DEFRA, but I think we are making tremendous progress. These things are not easy, but I will support our teams and all the NGOs and devolved Administrations we work with in going as fast as we can, because we understand the urgency. I welcome the constant nudging and encouragement from him on this and other matters.
The UK was also instrumental in agreeing the draft text of the “biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction” agreement earlier this year, which will provide the framework to implement greater protection and governance for over 60% of the global ocean. This is vital to achieving the global 30x30 target.
We also know that biodiversity loss and climate change are inextricably linked. With a 2° rise in global temperature, a predicted 90% of coral reefs will be lost, so we continue to work to raise ambition on ocean-climate action across the United Nations framework convention on climate change, to fill key evidence gaps and to build capacity around the world to protect and restore blue carbon habitats. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye will recognise the work that is being done. She called for more research and development, and for better understanding, which is what we are working towards.
As a founding member of the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution, which now numbers well over 50 countries, we are pushing for an effective and ambitious plastic pollution treaty that will end plastic pollution by 2040. As I mentioned, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane, was in Paris last week, and I am pleased that the critical decision was made to start drafting the new treaty text, with our world-leading scientists, businesses and NGOs working towards an agreement by the end of 2024.
Alongside protection, we know we have to manage our global ocean sustainably. That is why, last year, the UK joined other ambitious ocean leaders as part of the High-Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy, again working and collaborating internationally, and it is why we pushed for the June 2022 WTO fisheries subsidies agreement to curtail harmful subsidies and tackle one of the key drivers of overfishing.
In parallel, we are determined to end illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. I was pleased to speak at a recent debate secured by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell on this subject. With expanding membership, the IUU Fishing Action Alliance will bring further international pressure and action to stamp out this harmful practice.
Effective ocean action is possible only with the right resources and tools to deliver it. SDG 14, “life below water,” is the least funded of all the sustainable development goals, so the UK is helping to mobilise finance for ocean action. I was particularly pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye reference the importance of private finance because, of course, taxpayers’ money can go only so far. My noble Friend Lord Benyon, as the Minister with responsibility for green finance, is working diligently and determinedly to secure that private finance, particularly for the oceans. The UK’s blue belt programme is supporting the British overseas territories. It is so important that we work with our overseas territories to take action to protect the ocean. With £30 million of support since 2016, the blue belt now protects 4.3 million sq km of ocean and supports sustainable growth.
Our £500 million blue planet fund is supporting developing countries to address biodiversity loss and climate change by tackling marine pollution and supporting sustainable seafood in some of the world’s most important but fragile ocean environments. Just this morning, Lord Benyon hosted a roundtable to understand how public and private sector investment can come together to deliver a blended finance solution through the excellent global fund for coral reefs programme, which supports the ocean, reefs and climate-vulnerable communities.
But, of course, our action starts at home. We remain committed to achieving a good environmental status in our seas, and we will shortly publish an update to our programme of measures to do so. We have already built a comprehensive network of marine protected areas— 374 sites covering 38% of the UK’s waters and 40% of England’s—and we are focused on making sure that they are properly protected. Nearly 60% of England’s inshore MPAs now have fisheries byelaws in place. Having left the EU, we can put in place management to protect against damaging fishing practices in our offshore sites. The first four byelaws for offshore sites were made last year, and we plan to finish putting in the management needed in all MPAs by the end of next year.
Using the new powers in the Environment Act 2021, we now have a statutory target to make sure our MPAs are recovering our biodiversity. We have announced the first three highly protected marine areas, which provide the highest levels of protection. Those sites will be designated in the next month, and we are starting to look at further sites.
Protecting and restoring critical blue carbon habitats is a key part of our approach to protecting coastal communities, such as the one I live in, from rising seas and more frequent storms. That will deliver biodiversity and absorb carbon dioxide.
I am delighted that the cross-Administration UK Blue Carbon Evidence Partnership is publishing its evidence needs statement today, setting out key research questions and demonstrating the UK’s ambition to fill critical blue carbon evidence gaps. In response to the UN decade of ocean science for sustainable development, the UK has established a National Decade Committee to inspire and enable a whole-of-society approach to meeting the interconnected challenges to the ocean that we have heard about today.
Chris Grayling
The Minister referred to discussions that we had this week about these issues, when we spoke about the complexity of getting consent to reforest an area of the UK. Have she and her officials looked at what barriers there are, if any, to restoring areas of seagrass or kelp? If there are planning barriers, will she and her Department look at ways that we can alleviate the situation and make it easier to do that?
Trudy Harrison
It would not be appropriate for me to speak more about the work we are doing to speed up the way we plant trees in this country, as this is a debate about oceans. I am not the Minister directly responsible for oceans, so I will ask Lord Benyon to write to my right hon. Friend with more detailed information about any hold-ups that he has identified in the planning system, particularly around sea kelp.
Hon. Members referred to technologies, and the UK is a global leader in offshore wind. Through our offshore wind environmental improvement package, which is currently before the House as part of the Energy Bill, we are supporting the drive for net zero and energy security. The package will support the rapid deployment of offshore wind while protecting our precious marine environment through an innovative set of measures, including new environmental standards for offshore wind infrastructure, measures to enable strategic compensation and the establishment of a new marine recovery fund.
We know that the sea will only get busier. My Department is leading the cross-governmental marine spatial prioritisation programme to optimise use of our sea space and work together to increasingly co-locate uses where possible. That includes our domestic fishing industries. We are working to ensure that the industries are sustainable environmentally, economically and socially, with a diverse fishing fleet run by a fishing industry with whom we are committed to working much more closely. Of course, supporting our fishing communities through this transition is vital. We recognise the fantastic work they do, and the provision of fish and seafood continues to be an absolute priority. We have developed regional fisheries management groups and are making good progress on DEFRA’s first six frontrunner fisheries management plans. Those plans are being prepared for public consultation, building on a huge amount of engagement that has already taken place, and five FMPs will be published by the end of 2023.
As I have set out, we have good reason to be proud of the UK’s commitment and also its leadership, working with other countries. We have secured progress on many international agreements and continue to champion ocean protection here and internationally. Collaboration and awareness raising are vital, and the debate has certainly raised awareness. I hope I have been able to demonstrate the successful collaboration and outcomes that have come from those international negotiations and agreements.
That brings me back to the importance of World Ocean Day, which helps with both those aims. There is still much more to do and we can deliver together. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate about the work we are doing in DEFRA. I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye not just for the way in which she has enlightened us today, but for her continued passion for the environment. I very much look forward to visiting her constituency next week and meeting some of her farmers, who seem equally passionate about the transition towards much more environmental stewardship in food production. I look forward to seeing her there.
Sally-Ann Hart
I thank the Minister for her comprehensive speech and her agreement that more needs to be done despite the UK’s global leadership on this matter. She might be interested to know that the APPG’s next inquiry is on the future of ocean technology, where there is some exciting stuff going on.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), who highlighted the need for more research and data, the issue of plastic pollution and the leading role that the UK plays globally in combating that. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), who highlighted the importance of ocean-based solutions to climate change, the acute need to protect, restore and enforce our marine protected areas, which also protect our UK fishing livelihoods, and the role that the UK can play globally in this.
I thank the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), for their valuable contributions, illustrating—almost—that our ocean is not something that separates us, but which joins us together in political action.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered World Ocean Day.
Written Statements
Trade Negotiations with Israel, Mexico and Switzerland
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Nigel Huddleston)
The Department for Business and Trade has made progress on three key trade negotiations in the month of May. This statement provides Parliament with an update on the UK’s trade negotiations with Israel, Mexico, and Switzerland. The Government will continue to keep Parliament updated as these negotiations progress.
UK-Israel trade negotiations
The second round of United Kingdom-Israel free trade agreement negotiations commenced on 9 May, concluding on 17 May. This round of negotiations was hosted by the UK and conducted in a hybrid manner; a group of Israeli officials travelled to London for in-person discussions, with further officials attending virtually.
Prior to the round, the Secretary of State visited Israel to meet her counterpart, Minister Nir Barkat, to discuss the negotiations and the wider UK-Israel trade and business relationship.
During this round policy officials held text-based discussions, having exchanged draft chapter texts in advance of the round. Technical discussions were held across 30 policy areas and 60 sessions in London. Negotiations covered the breadth of the upgraded agreement.
The ongoing negotiations for a new modern free trade agreement putting services and innovation at its heart will upgrade our trade relationship, worth £7.2 billion in the four quarters to the end of 2022, supporting new opportunities for our businesses.
UK-Mexico trade negotiations
The third round of United Kingdom-Mexico free trade agreement negotiations commenced on 15 May, concluding on 19 May. This round of negotiations took place in Mexico City in a hybrid format, with a UK delegation of officials travelling for in-person discussions.
Officials held discussions across 66 sessions with 39 being held in person in Mexico City. A key objective for the round, at this relatively early stage, was to develop a more in-depth understanding of Mexico’s trade policy positions and priorities and use the opportunity to move our positions closer together through detailed discussions on treaty text.
These negotiations continue to reflect our shared ambition to secure a comprehensive and updated deal and to strengthen our existing trading relationship, worth over £4.8 billion in the four quarters to the end of 2022. Both countries agree that this is an opportunity to complement and add value to the UK’s accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for transpacific partnership (CPTPP).
UK-Switzerland trade negotiations
The first round of UK-Switzerland free trade agreement negotiations commenced on 22 May, concluding 2 June. This round of negotiations was hosted by the UK and took place in a hybrid manner; a group of Swiss officials travelled to London for in-person discussions, with some additional officials attending virtually.
Prior to the round the Secretary of State visited Switzerland to formally launch negotiations with her counterpart, Federal Councillor Guy Parmelin, where they discussed the significant opportunities an enhanced trade deal presented for both the UK and Switzerland.
During the round, officials held discussions across 30 policy areas and 53 sessions both in person in London and virtually. Chapter negotiators focused their discussions on establishing a more detailed understanding of the outcomes the UK and Switzerland are seeking and began to share early text proposals to work from.
These negotiations demonstrate our shared ambitions to upgrade and future-proof our current trade agreement to reflect the focus of both of our economies by delivering modern provisions for services, which represent over 70% of GDP for both our economies, while also identifying opportunities to further remove tariff barriers and create commercially meaningful opportunities.
Summary
The Government remain clear that any deal we sign, including with Israel, Switzerland and Mexico, will be in the best interests of the British people and the United Kingdom economy. We will not compromise on our high environmental and labour protections, public health, animal welfare and food standards, and we will maintain our right to regulate in the public interest. We are also clear that during these negotiations, the NHS, and the services it provides is not on the table.
His Majesty’s Government will continue to work closely with Israel, Mexico, and Switzerland to ensure negotiations proceed at pace and takes place on terms that are right for the UK.
[HCWS833]
UK-Maldives Free Trade Agreement
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Nigel Huddleston)
Today the Department for Business and Trade has announced the launch of a public call for input into a prospective free trade agreement with the Government of Republic of Maldives (Maldives). The call for input can be accessed via the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/trade-with-maldives-call-for-input.
Maldives is one of the only remaining Commonwealth countries without preferential access to UK markets or with which the UK is not already pursuing a free trade agreement (FTA). The UK is therefore looking to negotiate a bespoke, goods-only trade deal with Maldives that seeks to build on the existing goods trade between the countries. The UK Government are clear that any deal that we sign will not compromise on our high environmental and labour protections, public health, animal welfare and food standards, and we will maintain our right to regulate in the public interest.
The call for input will run for eight weeks and invite businesses, public sector bodies, individuals, and other interested stakeholders to set out their priorities for a closer trading relationship with Maldives.
The information that the Government receive through this exercise will be beneficial in shaping our approach to negotiations and our priorities and objectives, ensuring that our final approach is informed by stakeholder needs.
Next Steps
The UK and Maldivian Governments share a desire to develop closer ties. Prior to launching official talks with Maldives, the UK Government will publish their approach to negotiations; this will include a response to the call for input and our strategic objectives. We will continue to keep Parliament, the devolved Administrations, UK citizens and businesses updated, as we make progress.
[HCWS832]
Energy Prices Act 2022: Expenditure on Energy Schemes
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Amanda Solloway)
I am tabling this statement to update hon. Members under the Energy Prices Act 2022, in line with the requirement under the Act for quarterly reporting to Parliament on expenditure incurred under it. £m Expenditure incurred between 1 January and31 March 23 b) Cumulative expenditure incurred to 31 March 23 Energy bills support scheme GB and NI 4,200 11,873 Energy price guarantee GB and NI 253 253 Domestic alternative fuel payment 619 619 Energy bills relief scheme GB & NI 4,006 5,558 Non-domestic alternative fuel payment 61 61
This is the second quarterly report on energy scheme expenditure under section 14 of the Act and covers the period from 1 January to 31 March 2023.
Energy prices are volatile, and changes will affect the outturn cost of the schemes.
The Government have prioritised support for those most in need, while ensuring we act in a fiscally responsible way. The Government have covered nearly half a typical household’s energy bill through the energy price guarantee and energy bills support scheme since October—with a typical household saving around £1,500. The energy price guarantee scheme will continue at £2,500 to the end of June.
Future costs
Forecasts of FY23-24—1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024 —expenditure for the energy schemes were published by the Office for Budget Responsibility on 15 March 2023 as part of the spring Budget 2023. The forecasts provided were: £4.0 billion for the energy price guarantee, £0.5 billion for the energy bills relief scheme, £0.5 billion for the energy bills discount scheme and £0.4 billion for the energy bills discount scheme heat network support.
The costs in FY23-24 for other energy support schemes are forecast to total £0.5 billion. This includes the energy bills support scheme alternative funding, the domestic alternative fuel payment, the non-domestic alternative fuel payment, and prepayment meter levelisation (energy price guarantee).
Separately, the forecast for heat networks alternative dispute resolution bodies funding is £0.3 million.
All forecasts are provided on an accruals basis. Ongoing work on the reconciliation of scheme costs may impact the FY23-24 forecasts.
To note:
Figures for expenditure incurred are on a cash basis. This includes payments made by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to energy suppliers, local authorities and other scheme operators. Some of the expenditure incurred in the last quarter will be recognised in FY23-24, where it relates to energy scheme support from 1 April 2023 onwards.
The figures for expenditure incurred do not include accrued costs, i.e. expected FY22-23—1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023 —costs which are yet to be paid out. Therefore the figures for expenditure incurred may not represent the full cost of schemes in FY22-23.
The energy bills support scheme in Great Britain was not made under the powers conferred by the Energy Prices Act 2022, but it is included for completeness.
The energy bills discount scheme launched for UK businesses, charities and the public sector on 1 April 2023.
Heat networks alternative dispute resolution bodies funding utilises the power conferred by section 13 of the Energy Prices Act 2022. This scheme has not incurred expenditure to 31 March 2023. This funding is separate to the energy bills discount scheme heat network support.
Administrative costs are not included in figures.
[HCWS835]
UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly Membership
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Leo Docherty)
The Lord Ricketts has been appointed as a Vice-Chair of the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly in place of the Earl of Kinnoull.
The Baroness Bull CBE has been appointed as a full representative of the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly in place of the Earl of Kinnoull.
The Lord Krebs has been appointed as a substitute representative of the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly in place of the Baroness Bull CBE.
[HCWS834]
HIV Action Plan: Annual Update 2022-23
(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)
I am pleased to update the House on the publication of the first annual update to Parliament on the HIV action plan. In January 2019, the Government committed to an ambition to end new HIV transmissions, AIDS diagnoses, and HIV-related deaths within England by 2030. Achievement of these ambitious commitments—including our interim commitment to an 80% reduction in transmissions by 2025—is within our grasp, and we should be encouraged by the progress already made. This progress is testament to the collective and ongoing efforts of many organisations across the UK Health Security Agency, local government, the NHS and wider health system, statutory agencies, and the voluntary and community sector.
As part of the plan, we committed to update Parliament each year on the progress made towards our ambition to end new HIV transmissions, AIDS, and HIV-related deaths within England by 2030. I am proud to present to Parliament a summary of the work undertaken towards these objectives in 2022-23.
Despite the challenging backdrop of the covid pandemic, England has seen a 33% fall in new HIV diagnoses since 2019. NHS England has committed £20 million in funding for 2022 to 2025 to expand HIV opt-out testing in emergency departments in areas with the highest HIV prevalence. This has helped diagnose 2,000 new cases of blood-borne viruses (hepatitis B and C as well as HIV) in the first year of the programme. During National HIV Testing Week 2023 almost 22,000 free HIV testing kits were ordered by the public—with self-testing kits that provide instant at-home results available for the first time. We have also established the HIV Action Plan Implementation Steering Group to oversee progress, as well as a Community Advisory Group and four task and finish groups to support PrEP access and equity; workforce; HIV control strategies in low prevalence areas; and retention and engagement in care, and I look forward to seeing the impact they will make.
[HCWS838]
Illegal Migration Update
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
Provisions within the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (NABA), which came into force on 28 June 2022, set out the framework to differentiate between two groups of refugees who ultimately remain in the UK: “group 1” and “group 2”.
The primary way in which the groups are differentiated is the grant of permission to stay: group 1 refugees are normally granted refugee permission to stay for five years, after which they can apply for settlement, whereas group 2 refugees are normally granted temporary refugee permission to stay for 30 months on a 10-year route to settlement.
The differentiation policy was intended to disincentivise migrants from using criminal smugglers to facilitate illegal journeys to the UK. This was the right approach. Since then, the scale of the challenge facing the UK, like other countries, has grown— and that is why the Government introduced the Illegal Migration Bill. The Bill goes further than ever before in seeking to deter illegal entry to the UK, so that the only humanitarian route into the UK is through a safe and legal one. The Bill will radically overhaul how we deal with people who arrive in the UK illegally via safe countries, rendering their asylum and human rights claims (in respect of their home country) inadmissible and imposing a duty on the Home Secretary to remove them. This approach represents a considerably stronger means of tackling the same issue that the differentiation policy sought to address: people making dangerous and unnecessary journeys through safe countries to claim asylum in the UK.
We will therefore pause the differentiation policy in the next package of immigration rules changes in July 2023. This means we will stop taking grouping decisions under the differentiated asylum system after these rules changes and those individuals who are successful in their asylum application, including those who are granted humanitarian protection, will receive the same conditions. Our ability to remove failed asylum applicants remains unchanged.
Individuals who have already received a “group 2” or humanitarian protection decision under post-28 June 2022 policies will be contacted and will have their conditions aligned to those afforded to “group 1” refugees. This includes length of permission to stay, route to settlement, and eligibility for family reunion.
On 23 February 2023 the Home Office announced the streamlined asylum processing model for a small number of cases of nationalities with high asylum grant rates: Afghanistan, Eritrea, Libya, Syria, Yemen. Because this model focuses on manifestly well-founded cases, positive decisions can be taken without the need for an additional interview. No one will have their asylum application refused without the opportunity of an additional interview. Those claims made between 28 June 2022 and the date of introduction of the Illegal Migration Bill (7 March 2023) will be processed according to this model. This will also include claimants from Sudan. Sudanese legacy claimants are already being processed in-line with established policies and processes and will be decided in-line with the Prime Minister’s commitment to clear the backlog of legacy asylum claims by the end of 2023.
[HCWS837]
Pensions Dashboards
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Laura Trott)
Pensions dashboards will transform the way in which people plan for retirement. On 2 March 2023, I announced that the pensions dashboards programme would require additional time to deliver the connection of pension providers and schemes, in accordance with the connection deadlines set out in the Pensions Dashboards Regulations 2022 and the Financial Conduct Authority’s corresponding pensions dashboard rules.
More time is needed to deliver this complex build, and for the pensions industry to help facilitate the successful connection of a wide range of different IT systems to the dashboards digital architecture. As part of our reset of the pensions dashboard programme, I am today laying amending regulations with a new approach to delivery that allows us to work more collaboratively with the pensions industry. Rather than setting out the entire staging timeline in legislation, we will instead set this out in guidance which we will collaborate on with industry this year. This will give the pensions dashboards programme the flexibility it needs to ensure this complex project is completed effectively.
In recognition that the requirement to connect to the digital architecture should remain mandatory, we will include a connection deadline in legislation of 31 October 2026. This is not the dashboards available point—the point at which dashboards will be accessible to the public —which could be earlier than this.
The Government remain as committed as ever to making pensions dashboards a reality and we are ambitious about their delivery. I am confident that this reappraised approach will enable us to make significant progress on delivering dashboards safely and securely, enabling consumers to take advantage of their benefits to plan for retirement.
[HCWS836]
House of Lords
Schools: Curriculum Update
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Holmes of Richmond
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to launch a commission to consider how the school curriculum may be updated to include (1) data literacy, (2) digital literacy, (3) financial literacy, and (4) character and resilience education.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my technology interests as set out in the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have no plans to launch a commission to review the curriculum. Data literacy is covered within mathematics, science, computing and geography; digital literacy within computing, and relationships, sex and health education; and financial literacy within citizenship and mathematics. Relationships, sex and health education, and citizenship, directly support the development of character and resilience, and schools can reinforce personal development in other curriculum subjects and through their extracurricular enrichment offer.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, if AI is to human intellect what steam was to human strength, your Lordships will see the extent of the issue. Steam literally changed time. This is just AI; when it is considered alongside the other emerging technologies, issues around data and privacy, the platforms and the approaching metaverse, is it not clear that it is high time to launch a commission to consider a complete overhaul of the curriculum? It should enable young people—ultimately, all people—to be safe, secure and successful, optimising the opportunity for human talent to lead technology.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I agree with my noble friend’s point about the importance of data and AI and how they may transform many aspects of our lives. The Prime Minister has been absolutely clear about our national commitment to be a leader in this space. There is a great deal of work going on across government but, in the interim, we are absolutely committed to elements within the curriculum that deliver on all the issues my noble friend raises.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, everyone would agree on the need for a relevant curriculum, so the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, makes a very good point, particularly on building character and resilience. Can the Minister explain to the House how children’s resilience can be built when the Public Accounts Committee report published yesterday found that the attainment gap in respect of the most disadvantaged children has continued to grow? The Government appear to have no specified measurement for the success of the additional investment in the National Tutoring Programme.
Baroness Barran (Con)
This country is not unique in its disadvantaged children having suffered particularly during the pandemic. We have been very clear about our vision for the National Tutoring Programme, which is particularly relevant in giving disadvantaged children access to some of the privileges enjoyed by children from more socially advantaged homes. Tutoring on its own is not enough, which is why we have made a number of commitments including, at one end of the spectrum, putting senior mental health leads in our schools and, at the other, reinforcing our commitment to sport, music and other resilience-building activities in our schools.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the building of character and resilience does not require the appointment of a commission? Teachings of right and wrong, and of responsibility and resilience, are common in our different religions and other world views, but are, sadly, badly obscured in formal RE, with its overfocus on rituals, artefacts and the shape and size of religious buildings. Does the Minister further agree that much greater emphasis should be put on the important ethical commonalities between religions?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am not sure that I agree with the noble Lord’s description of the RE curriculum, but he makes the broader point that schools play a part—along with, obviously and incredibly importantly, families—in setting the moral compass of our children and our nation’s future.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, when my noble friend Lord Holmes asked a similarly important Question a little while ago and I raised the importance of our schoolchildren having a real foundation in the history of their country, my noble friend replied very positively and was encouraging. Has she any further progress to report?
Baroness Barran (Con)
We are not changing the national curriculum, but we did a major review of it in 2014. A knowledge-rich curriculum, which evidence suggests is particularly important for children from disadvantaged communities, continues to be our focus.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I think we all agree that there will be a point when the improvement and radical updating of the curriculum are needed. If that is to happen, putting in place the required backing for teachers to get support will be necessary. The Minister gave a very helpful answer when she talked about citizenship. Will she reflect that some of the people who have the greatest character and resilience in reality are those living in the most desperate circumstances—often a single parent abandoned by their partner with three or four children in a high-rise block? Preaching to them is not what they need.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I really hope that I did not give the impression that any element of preaching was going on. I absolutely recognise the description that the noble Lord gave. I just ask the House to reflect on this idea of radical improvement being needed in the curriculum. England just came fourth in the PIRLS global reading survey; we are, as we like to say in the DfE, the best in the West. That does not sound to me like a curriculum that needs radical overhaul.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, does the Minister agree that resilience is not something primarily that is taught? It is something that develops as you take what is thrown at you in the experiences of life. To that end, is any thinking going on in government about future curricula which allow for children in our schools, particularly secondary schools, to be exposed to opinions and things with which they do not agree in order that they are able to live in a world of conflicting dogmas and opinions, and do not have to run away from them?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The right reverend Prelate makes a very important point. The House is obviously familiar with the emphasis we have put on freedom of speech, particularly in our higher education institutions, but the skills of critical thinking, analysis and debate—which data will feed into in coming to objective and balanced views and an ability to listen to others—obviously need to start in our schools and homes.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, these exchanges have already pinpointed the problem that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, is trying to highlight. The skills required by the next generation to understand and deal with new technologies are real and present now. Quite frankly, the list he put forward of skills to be acquired are beyond the reach of a single department, including the Department for Education. His idea of a commission, possibly sponsored by the Prime Minister, who has skills in this area, is now needed to avoid moving into another era when most of our population are ill-equipped to deal with the technologies serving them.
Baroness Barran (Con)
It would help to understand some of the specific areas of concern. Data and its use are firmly embedded in the mathematics, science, geography and computing curriculums. Computing is a statutory national curriculum subject from key stage 1 to key stage 4. We have introduced, and are introducing, a number of digital-focused T-levels. The fundamental point is that, as shown in the OECD PISA surveys, without strong mathematics and reading, you cannot achieve literacy in any of these things. That is why our focus on those building blocks is so crucial.
Baroness Sater (Con)
My Lords, numerous reports, including the publication in February from the APPG on Financial Education for Young People, of which I am vice-chair, have consistently highlighted that the provision of financial education is severely lacking in our schools. Can the Minister tell me why the Government do not prioritise this issue, given that doing so would result in more of our children leaving school with a crucial life skill?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I cannot accept my noble friend’s assertion that we are not providing this effectively. We appreciate that there are some issues in the delivery of financial education—for example, we know that only 69% of secondary schools say that they teach money management. I know that reviews have shown a lack of confidence among some teachers in delivering financial education, which is why the Oak National Academy is producing more dedicated materials to support teachers. The Money and Pensions Service produced financial education guidance for schools in 2021. We are working on this across every aspect, but I reiterate that without mathematics and reading, we will not achieve financial literacy.
Housing: Modular Construction
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rooker
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to improve the rates of home ownership by the use of modular construction techniques.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to increasing the number of homes built using modern methods of construction—MMC—across all housing tenures. MMC offers a range of benefits, such as delivering high-quality energy-efficient homes more quickly, and the Government are supporting the sector with our £1.5 billion levelling up home building fund and providing funding for up to 40,000 MMC homes through the affordable homes programme to help deliver these benefits at scale.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her Answer. Does she agree that modern methods of construction are safer for employees, create less waste and avoid the corner-cutting of Friday afternoons on wet building sites? However, the technology requires a systematic pipeline: you cannot switch factories on and off. Are the Government taking action to ensure that mortgage providers are confident in modern technology and, above all, that planning departments, which have a prejudice that remains today, accept modern technology?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I know that the noble Lord has been interested in this sector for many years. I assure him that the Government are taking this very seriously. We are focusing on removing all the barriers to growth. These are about insurance, finance, warranties and, as he mentioned, mortgages. It is all about stimulating that pipeline so that these companies can invest and keep those factories going until this becomes a normality in our housing system.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, has my noble friend read the government publication Modern Methods of Construction, published in September last year? It says:
“The government is committed to using its position as the single largest construction client to support the adoption of a more productive and sustainable business model”,
and goes on to say that there is
“a presumption in favour of off-site construction for relevant departments”.
What progress have the Government been able to make in using MMC for the prison and hospital building programme? If there is success there, might it not encourage the housebuilding industry to take renewed interest in MMC for homes?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
On my noble friend’s last point, that is exactly what we are doing: we are encouraging all the time through investment and support to help housebuilding. On other issues of building public buildings in particular, we want to encourage the take-up of MMC across the whole range of traditional building sites. We can do that by sharing across government. We have introduced a presumption in favour of MMC in our capital programmes, such as within the Department for Education’s school rebuilding programme and the Ministry of Defence accommodation programme. Significant progress has been made on schools and prisons programmes, and we are using those examples of best practice to help shape future policy for MMC.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, in the social housing sector, Legal & General stopped production on the basis that there was an insufficient pipeline of orders and it had had six years of losses. What discussions are the Government having with the social housing sector to see whether modular construction can contribute not just to owner occupation but to dealing with a very serious shortage of social housing?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
As I have said, it is across all sectors. We need to support the MMC sector to increase the amount of housing across the board, whether that be private, affordable or social rented.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, in recent discussions in your Lordships’ House and in Grand Committee, noble Lords have expressed huge concern about the Government’s plans to lower the standards of licensing for houses in multiple occupation, specifically those to be used for asylum seekers. Local councils are now using modular construction to provide high-quality, low-cost, self-contained accommodation for the homeless. Has the Minister considered this method of housing asylum seekers?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am not aware that we have looked at this for asylum seekers particularly, but if there is a requirement for high-quality housing to be delivered quickly then we will of course work across government, as I said we are doing, to ensure that all departments look at MMC as a method of delivering quickly and safely.
Lord Kamall (Con)
What conversations have there been across government departments on the environmental impact of introducing modular housing, particularly the use of shipping containers for modular homes, which are seen to be a more environmentally friendly way of avoiding waste and providing homes for the future?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
One of the main things with modular homes is that they are more environmentally friendly: they are energy efficient and use more environmentally friendly products. We need to keep pushing this to get this sector to be a far more major part of our whole building industry.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, in 2019, the Science and Technology Select Committee produced a report on off-site construction. I am pleased to hear that the Government accepted the recommendation for procurement for government buildings to be on that basis. One of the other recommendations was on the skills gap that needs to be filled, particularly for the Government to work with the construction industry and the Construction Leadership Council to develop the skills that we require for off-site construction.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Skilling up in modern methods is extremely important for the whole construction industry. There are two ways that we are doing this. First, the Construction Industry Training Board levy applies to all employers engaged wholly or mainly in construction industry activities. Secondly, the Government’s apprenticeship levy funds slightly different activities, but these funds are ring-fenced to support apprenticeships across the whole construction industry, which is what we require to skill up the workforce to deliver what we want, particularly in MMC.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, today, 62% of the population owns a home of any kind in the UK, compared with 71% in 2003. The main reason for that is the government-backed wage freezes. The real average wage today is lower than in 2007 and workers’ share of GDP is at a 50-year low. People simply cannot afford to buy a home. Can the Minister explain what steps the Government will take to increase workers’ share of GDP, which necessarily requires a reduction in capital’s share of GDP as well?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The question is slightly off-piste and I could be standing here for quite a long time answering it, but I will certainly ask the Treasury. The noble Lord mentions home ownership, which is really important. Since spring 2010, as I think I said yesterday, 837,000 households have been helped to purchase a home through government-backed schemes. That is the important bit. Continually putting up the living wage for people and encouraging them to be homeowners is something that this Government have done, and done well.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
My Lords, I totally support the view of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. One of my previous companies, Bovis, can erect a modular home in six weeks flat. They are wonderful places to live and hugely energy efficient; planning is the major problem.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right. These homes can go up quickly but the long period of time is often in the planning system. That is why the levelling-up Bill is going through, through which we hope to make the planning system simpler and quicker for developers.
Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as on the register. Is there any evidence to show that planning is actually a barrier to modern methods of construction?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My noble friend would ask that question. I suggest that it is a barrier not just to this method of construction, although the sector needs to consider how it sells itself to the public. There is all this talk about MMC not being proper housing, whereas if anybody goes to see it they can see that it is beautiful housing. It is not ugly and can look like any other traditionally built house. However, the planning system needs to be faster for all types of construction, including MMC.
RAF: C-130J Hercules
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of withdrawing the C-130J Hercules aircraft on the capacity of the RAF transport fleet.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, the Atlas A400M is the next generation of air mobility aircraft. It is a more modern and capable aircraft than the Hercules C-130J, offering the opportunity to approach those tasks carried out by the Hercules in a different manner. Compared with Hercules, Atlas has an improved lift capacity and range. It is increasingly capable in the tactical role and has proven operational credibility in the airlift role.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
A month ago, two-thirds of the incoming Atlas A400 fleet, which will at the end of this month replace the Hercules craft that were, for example, so important in Sudan, were still listed as unavailable for flying missions as they cannot carry out all the niche functions of the C-130s, such as in Special Forces missions. The response from the defence sector has been scathing; some I cannot quote but others have said that the UK will be “dangerously exposed”. Does the Minister accept that criticism? From 1 July, how many transport aircraft will be in operation until the remaining planes are fit for purpose, whenever that will be?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
As the noble Lord will be aware, we have taken delivery of the full cohort of flight, that being 22 of these aircraft. It is the case that there were some niche challenges and some availability issues to do with global supply, but I reassure your Lordships about two things: all critical operational commitments are met and all critical operational commitments continue to be met. The issues around niche capabilities boiled down to two things: a small range of niche airdrop capabilities and a small range of air dispatch capabilities. I cannot give further detail on those but they are now being accelerated in terms of being addressed. On availability, I am pleased to confirm that the improvement there has been manifest. We have seen a 25% to 30% improvement in availability compared with 18 months ago.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, the reference to niche capabilities makes this sound like something minor but we are talking about Special Forces operations here. Can the Minister tell the House by what date the Atlas fleet will be capable of the full range of Special Forces missions? Can she also say, given the difficulties with the serviceability of the Atlas, what the target rate of availability is for that aircraft fleet and how it compares with its current availability?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
As the noble and gallant Lord will be aware, on availability, if we factor in planned maintenance for the whole fleet and retrofitting for some of the older A400Ms to bring them up to modern standards, there will always be an element of unavailability. On the matter of the Special Forces, the noble and gallant Lord will understand that I cannot comment specifically on their activities, but I refer him to the meeting on 17 May of the Defence Select Committee in the other place, when Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton—now Chief of the Air Staff—reassured the committee that he had spoken to Director Special Forces. He was clear that he was very impressed with the A400M and that it could achieve all potential courses of action.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the Government’s defence export advocate. The Hercules has given loyal service for more than 60 years but its successor, the A400M, has been planned for some 20 years. It has double the range and double the payload, and it flies faster. It does all the things that the Hercules can do, or it will do in time, but there have been some niche problems, as has been explained. However, my understanding is that some of our European allies will now not seek to buy their initial order of A400Ms, meaning that there will be some spare capacity in the production line. If the price is right, will the Government consider buying some more?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My noble friend never hesitates to tempt me to give the Chamber interesting titbits from the Dispatch Box. The current fleet of 22 aircraft is the basis on which we are currently working. As my noble friend will be aware, the Atlas will not completely replicate what the Hercules did; it is a more versatile plane and there are other activities that other aircraft can carry out.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the Hercules has been taken out of service. Fourteen of them were due to continue until the 2030s but are being withdrawn this year. In December last year, the National Audit Office indicated that, instead of there being more Atlases, 22 was going to be the total number. Is the Minister reassured that we have sufficient capabilities, niche or otherwise? If not, could she go back to the department and suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, is right that we should be seeking to increase the number of A400Ms?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I will take the last bit of the noble Baroness’s question first. There is no evidence to suggest that the size of that capability is inadequate. I have been frank about the acceleration of the capabilities where improvement had to be effected; that is happening. In fact, what was evident from Operation Polar Bear, the evacuation from Sudan, was that the Atlas acquitted itself with distinction. It got a lot of people out—more than a Hercules could ever have done—so, as I say, it is fit for purpose. I repeat: all critical operational commitments are being met.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, I refer to the two special occasions when I was exposed to the capabilities of the C-130. The first was a no less than 12-hour flight from Ascension Island to the Falklands; we refuelled at least twice in the air on the way. That flight was commanded by Wing Commander Carrington, whose younger brother is, I believe, now the noble Lord, Lord Carrington of Fulham. The second occasion was when I did a parachute jump into Poole Harbour from the back of a C-130. Happily, I was rescued very quickly by the Royal Marines.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I must observe that my noble friend is much more intrepid than I am.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will probably be aware that A400Ms from the UK, France and Germany performed quite superbly during the Caribbean disaster relief operations after Hurricane Irma in 2017, landing on rougher strips and carrying heavier loads, including Puma helicopters. Further to my noble friend Lord Lancaster’s question, exports are going to be crucial—not just to the UK economy but to BAE in particular. How is the export programme going?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I have no specific information on that. I shall undertake to write to my noble friend with whatever information I can procure.
Lord Kamall (Con)
Could my noble friend the Minister give us some more information about the reports there have been that 15 nations, 11 of which are NATO members, are interested in buying RAF Hercules C-130s? Is the intention to sell them before we get the required number of A400Ms? Can she give us any more information about those proposed sales?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I can confirm that the Hercules will be withdrawn from service at the end of this month, and that sales activity is already being managed through the Defence Equipment Sales Authority. Disposal is at a very early stage, but we are already looking at activities to support the potential sale of the aircraft, support equipment, specialised C-130J spares and flight simulators. We are exploring potential sales on a Government-to-Government basis.
Covid-19 Inquiry
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
To ask His Majesty’s Government what range of information they have now agreed to provide to the COVID-19 inquiry.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, we have provided, and will continue to provide, the inquiry with all relevant material as requested. Following the request of the chair, the Cabinet Office will share a schedule of WhatsApp messages by the end of this week, and additional witness statements will follow. We have provided enormous quantities of material to the inquiry so far and will continue to do so. We remain determined to provide any potentially relevant material that the chair requests so that we can learn the lessons from this dreadful pandemic.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, this is a total shambles—and there is more to come. As well as this totally futile dispute, I understand that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hallett, has met with Lord Brailsford, who is chairing the separate Scottish report. Members will recall that the separate guidance and response in the different countries of the United Kingdom caused confusion and distress. Two separate reports could cause additional confusion and distress. Will the Minister give a clear indication as to when the reports will be published so that those whose relatives died needlessly will know who was responsible?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
It is indeed the case that the Scottish Government are doing their own separate inquiry, and they organised separate arrangements during the pandemic. The inquiry is in the hands of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hallett. She is doing a very wide-ranging inquiry, and the timing of its results depends on her work, which, as I have explained, we are trying our very best to progress. We are providing a huge amount of support from right across government.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My noble friend will recall that, back in 2020 and 2021, the opposition parties were very keen to lock down for longer and harder than we actually did. Could my noble friend tell us what assessment the Government have made of the efficacy of lockdowns and the costs to the country in social, economic, health and educational terms, and whether anybody now believes that the lockdowns were a good idea?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My noble friend speaks powerfully, as always. However, this is a matter for the inquiry. We have set up this wide-ranging inquiry so that these points can be looked at. It is right that different witnesses are recounting their experiences and that the inquiry is able to call upon the sorts of findings that my noble friend has mentioned.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister recall an earlier government-appointed judicial inquiry in which the Government chose what material to release to the judge rather than allowing the judge, under the rule of law, to choose for himself or herself? Also, does the Government’s recourse to judicial review mean that they have now reversed their previous attitude to limiting the judicial review and that therefore we can expect not to see ouster clauses in any future Bills under this Government?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Although this is a much wider inquiry even than other previous important inquiries, the process that has been followed by the Cabinet Office and across Whitehall is very similar in terms of providing information to the chair. There is a judicial review because of a specific technical point raised by the Section 21 notice that has been issued. In terms of judicial review, the noble Lord is right that judicial review must be used with circumspection. However, there is an important technical point here about whether it is right to provide unambiguously irrelevant material to the inquiry which is the subject of the review.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, there is a strong public interest in this inquiry being carried out constructively and expeditiously, and that should also be a public interest between the Government and the investigation. Does the Minister agree that it would be helpful if judicial review proceedings were stayed so that the Government and the inquiry could reach a reasonable accommodation on this issue?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord about the possibility of an accommodation being reached. We have had discussions with the inquiry to bridge the gap between sincerely held views. However, we have also requested that any judicial review is held expeditiously, and we are very glad that the court has agreed to deal with this before the end of June. In the meantime—and I cannot emphasise this more strongly—every day more material is being sent into the inquiry and the large teams working on this important matter are co-operating.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister guarantee that the inquiry will be provided with the figures outlining the serious loss of personnel in the NHS, which is causing serious problems in the cancer field, as we have heard about today, and which have occurred over the period that it is investigating?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I assure the noble Lord that anything that is Covid related is being made available to the inquiry, subject to some security points. The impact of the Covid measures on the wider NHS and health is a matter for the chair but is inherently relevant.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend not think that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hallett, might draw some lessons from the experience of France and Sweden? They have completed their inquiries and been able to give guidance on where mistakes were made and what should happen in the future. Why on earth has this inquiry been extended in scope such that we cannot get the answers which the entire country is waiting for?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
This is an independent inquiry, and its conduct is for the chair. However, clearly the experience of other countries is also important, and I am sure that material in respect of those will be submitted to the inquiry and taken into account.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I raised this issue of the timing during the Minister’s Statement earlier this week. The amount of information that the Government say is relevant is enormous. They have said that 20 million documents may be relevant to the inquiry and, so far, something like 55,000 have been submitted. Why were the terms of reference of exactly what was required, and a timescale, not agreed between the Government and the inquiry prior to it starting? What is the Government’s assessment of the time that it will take them to go through these 20 million documents?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
As I explained, ever since the inquiry was agreed, the Government have been helping it to ensure that, as is the precedent of other inquiries, the key documents are made available and appropriate witness statements are prepared. We have extended that process to wider material at its request, to reflect modern communications. The terms of reference were wide and a lot of discretion was left to the chair. The Government are keen to see the inquiry’s conclusions and findings as soon as possible. It is being phased by modules, and we look forward to hearing the chair’s conclusions.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that key documents will include information to the inquiry on the role of procurement, including concerns raised about transparency by the National Audit Office? It does not take an inquiry for the Minister to establish from her noble friends when the issue of the 118 million items still stored in the People’s Republic of China, costing this country £250,000 every day, will be resolved. If she cannot answer that now, will she agree to write?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Arrangements for procurement are very much at the heart of some of the issues in the inquiry, as I remember we discussed here on many occasions with the noble Lord. Of course, this was covered by the terms of reference; I look forward to hearing the conclusions just as much as he does.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I wonder what kind of example the Government think they are setting for other parties to litigation or, indeed, to judicial inquiries. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, deserved a better answer; who is the ultimate arbiter of what is relevant when that is in dispute? Is it the Government or the trusted senior judge?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Of course we trust the senior judge. She has control over what she decides within the framework of the inquiry, as we have been discussing, which has advantages and disadvantages. In the judicial review, we are addressing the narrow point of whether it is right to provide unambiguously irrelevant material. This could cover anything from civil servants’ or families’ medical conditions to matters totally unconnected with the Government’s handling of Covid. It seems right to have a ruling on how that should be handled, not least given the implications for future inquiries and future Governments.
Business of the House
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, before we move on to further business, I will refer to events yesterday. As noble Lords will be aware, the House sat until 4.20 am this morning. In my 26 years in your Lordships’ House, I cannot remember a Committee stage going so late. When the House has sat very late in recent times, it has been because of extreme and legitimate time pressures to get legislation on to the statute book.
I do not think that debating extremely important legislation in the middle of the night is sensible or acceptable in the absence of unavoidable time pressures. It is even less acceptable given that there was no agreement in advance, at least from these Benches and, I believe, the Cross Benches, on what sitting “late” meant. There was also clearly inadequate communication with the Lord Speaker’s office, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, the last Deputy Speaker to be rostered, found himself having to sit on the Woolsack for a continuous six hours.
I therefore have several questions for the Leader. Will he explain what urgency impelled him to believe it necessary for the House to sit so late? Does he believe that it is acceptable for staff to have to work until 4.20 am and then to expect the House to be fully operational by 11 am this morning? Does he accept that, as a self-regulating House, all groups in the House need to be informed in good time of the Government’s proposals for sitting and rising times? Can he give an assurance that the House will not sit into the early hours again except in cases of extreme urgency? Finally, will he agree to an early meeting with group leaders, the Convenor and Whips to discuss how we can avoid such circumstances as occurred last night being repeated during the lifetime of this Parliament?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, it is quite clear that, while some Members may be looking fresh-faced, bright and breezy this morning, others are looking a bit bleary-eyed. The difficulty with very late—or, I should say, early morning—sittings is that they exclude Members who have contributions to make who cannot remain as late.
This is a complex and controversial Bill that we are discussing, which needs examination and scrutiny. May I put forward three suggestions? First, we still have no impact assessment for the Bill. It has been through the Commons; it is now in Committee here and we have Report to come. It would be very helpful if the noble Baroness could commit that, before we get to Report, the impact assessment will be ready. The guidance on legislation says that it should be ready at the start of a Bill’s consideration; I do not think it unreasonable to ask to have the impact assessment before Report.
Secondly, I appreciate that the Minister is relatively new to his job, but I hope he will come to recognise that the House appreciates full answers, co-operation and collaboration. It is possible to disagree agreeably. That kind of co-operation across the House would help the passage of a Bill that is contentious.
Thirdly, it would be helpful to the entire House if all of us, when speaking—and to coin a phrase from the radio—avoided hesitation, repetition and deviation. My noble friend Lord Kennedy has been giving this a great deal of thought—he had until 4.30 am to do so. It would be helpful to have an early meeting of the usual channels to look for a way forward. We recognise that the Government want to get their legislation through and to proceed in a timely manner, but we also want to have the proper debate and discussion that we need.
I agree that, if we are sitting late, it is a courtesy to Parliament as a whole that the caterers, doorkeepers, Lord Speaker’s office and others involved be made aware of that—if there is any possibility of it happening again.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, it is slightly “three in the hoose” to say the same thing, but I think it is worth underlining these points. Yesterday’s events were, by any measure, extreme. They underline the absolute importance of communication, which came up short yesterday.
Our community is quite a big one. The community of Members is part of that, and we were under the impression that things would be wrapped up shortly after midnight. The deputies community—I am of course a deputy as well—had rostered for the hour after midnight, so it was caught short. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, is not in his place; I hope he is sleeping the sleep of heroes.
There are other members of the community as well; I have written down a few: our doorkeepers, our clerks, Hansard, the catering staff, the broadcast staff, and even a gentleman in the facilities department who is always here when we are sitting. Communication with these people is essential, and I think we can do better. I therefore ask the noble Baroness the Chief Whip—I suppose it is she who is going to respond—to confirm that she is committed to the principle of even-handed treatment of and strong communication with our community on these things, because then we can manage much better.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Good morning, my Lords. The last point made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, is absolutely right. The points that I make this morning will underline that consistency in those principles is very important.
One of the first things to say is that Governments should get their business through. I stand here as Chief Whip to say that what the Opposition commit to doing, I will also commit to doing if I am ever the Opposition Chief Whip. That is a really important principle. Regarding that principle, the Liberal Democrats, when they were a partner in government, spent from 2.15 pm one day until 12.51 pm the following day on getting the AV vote through. Whether the House feels that that was an important, urgent thing to have got through, they did get it through. The House sat until they did, and that was the Committee stage of a Bill.
I endorse the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, about the repetition of arguments. At 3.15 am, I thought that I had fallen asleep, because the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, was repeating arguments from earlier in the day—important though they were. The Companion includes an important principle on the repetition of argument.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, shakes her head at literally everything, but this is in the Companion. Unless noble Lords want to change the Companion, it remains there.
I was also accused of detaining the House. The House detained the House, because, on the point of the repetition of argument, it was the Committee’s decision to keep making the same arguments again and again.
On the point about the usual channels, I was planning to speak to the usual channels 23 minutes ago, but I accommodated the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip, and we will speak later.
My noble friend Lord Lexden is a national treasure. He sat here for hours, without complaint, because that is the sort of professional that he is.
On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, about the impact assessment, I will certainly take that back. I will speak to the Minister and we will do what we can.
The most important thing I will take away is about communication with the people who support the running of this House.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
Although I am sure that the noble Baroness has made some extremely valuable points, could she respond to the question that was put to her by several noble Lords on the subject of what the plans are for similarly late sittings in the future?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I think that my first point answered that: the Government will get their priority business through.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, does the noble Baroness understand that, if the Bills were better when they came to the House, there would be fewer amendments and it would take less time to get them through?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
That is a judgment call from the noble Baroness. This discussion is not about how much people do or do not like Bills. What is clear is that Committee and Report stages are lasting an awful lot longer, and that goes back to my first point about the constant repetition of the same point.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
Does the noble Baroness not agree—I made this point to her at about 12.30 am—that important debates on the detention of women and pregnant mothers were questions that were not dealt with in a repetitious way? They were important issues, raised by her own Government Benches as well. I appealed to her and the Leader of the House last night that, rather than keeping us here until the early hours of morning, another day will be necessary for the Bill. The Minister is right that the issue is not whether or not you are in favour of the Bill; this is about the way that Parliament does its business and the reputation of Parliament. It is important, therefore, that time is made available so that we can complete this—maybe even with a morning sitting as well, if necessary, rather than keeping Members of your Lordships’ House here until the early hours. Whether we are responsible for that ourselves or whether it is the Government is not the point; we should not be here in the early hours of the morning dealing with important and controversial questions.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I refer the noble Lord to my previous comments; I will not repeat myself and make them again. I point out that the first group yesterday was, in essence, the same as the previous group on Monday night, and it took one hour and 43 minutes to make exactly the same points.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
In my noble friend’s discussions with the usual channels, will she make the point that there are some conventions in this House? I have watched debates, even on Report, where noble Lords—not looking in any particular direction—read out speeches for 14 or 15 minutes which were not actually on the subject concerned. That is unfair to our Ministers.
I remind those outside who are so quick to criticise the House of Lords that, this Tuesday, the House of Commons finished at 2.30 pm, while we sit into the early hours because this House does a proper job. However, it cannot do its job if noble Lords do not observe the conventions and operate in accordance with our rules.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Maybe my noble friend brings up a beneficial point at this time. We are very patient and courteous but the reading of speeches irritates the House. If I may express my own opinion, quite often that happens when the speaker has not listened to the previous speech.
Lord Brownlow of Shurlock Row (Con)
I agree with everything my noble friend said. I was one of the Peers here—there were about 80 of us for the majority of the time. I put on record my sincere thanks to all the House staff who supported us, such as the doorkeepers and so on.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I second that. They are absolutely wonderful.
Lord Scriven (LD)
Can the noble Baroness respond to what the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said? One of the reasons why a lot of questions have been asked, over and again, is because of the lack of an impact assessment, which is absolutely vital for this House to do its job. Will the impact assessment be available to the House before Report?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Lord completely underlines the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, made.
International Criminal Police Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2023
The Earl of Courtown
That the draft Order laid before the House on 20 April be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 5 June.
Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Extension of Duration of Non-jury Trial Provisions) Order 2023
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Caine
That the draft Order laid before the House on 24 April be approved.
Relevant document: 38th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 5 June.
Medical Devices (Amendment) (Great Britain) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Markham
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 27 April be approved.
Relevant document: 38th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 5 June.
Financial Services and Markets Bill
Thursday 8th June 2023
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 View all Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 124-II Second marshalled list for Report - (6 Jun 2023)
13:06 - Division on Amendment 15 - Ayes: 193 / Noes: 159 - Amendment 15 agreed.
13:19 - Division on Amendment 18 - Ayes: 191 / Noes: 154 - Amendment 18 agreed.
Baroness Penn
“Competitiveness and growth objective: reporting requirements
(1) Each regulator must make two reports to the Treasury on how it has complied with its duty to advance the competitiveness and growth objective.(2) The reports prepared by each regulator under subsection (1) must in particular explain—(a) the action taken by the regulator to ensure that the competitiveness and growth objective is embedded in its operations, processes and decision-making, and(b) how any rules and guidance that the regulator has made advance that objective.(3) The first report under this section must be made before the end of 12 months beginning with the first day on which section 24 of this Act comes into force, and must relate to that period.(4) The second report under this section must be made before the end of 24 months beginning with the first day on which section 24 of this Act comes into force, and must relate to the period beginning with the day on which the first report is published.(5) The Treasury must lay a copy of each report prepared under this section before Parliament.(6) Each regulator must publish its reports prepared under this section in such manner as it thinks fit.(7) In this section—(a) “regulator” means the FCA and the PRA;(b) references to the competitiveness and growth objective, and the duty to advance that objective, are—(i) in relation to the FCA, references to its objective in section 1EB of FSMA 2000 and to its duty to advance that objective under section 1B(4A) of that Act, and(ii) in relation to the PRA, references to its objective in section 2H(1B) of FSMA 2000 and to its duty to advance that objective under section 2H(1)(b) of that Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would insert a new Clause to ensure that the FCA and the PRA, in addition to their annual reports, each provide for two consecutive years a report on the new competitiveness and growth objective, as inserted into the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 by Clause 24 of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Penn) (Con)
My Lords, as your Lordships know, the Bill delivers the outcomes of the future regulatory framework, or FRF, review. It repeals hundreds of pieces of retained EU law relating to financial services and, as we have discussed, will give the regulators significant new rule-making responsibilities. The Government have been clear that these increased responsibilities must be balanced with clear accountability, appropriate democratic input and transparent oversight. The Bill therefore introduces substantial enhancements to the scrutiny and accountability framework for the regulators.
Following Grand Committee, the Government have brought forward a series of amendments which, taken together, seek to improve the Bill through further formalising the role of Parliamentary accountability, supporting Parliament through independent analysis and scrutiny, and increasing reporting and transparency to drive overall accountability. The group we are now debating covers proposals aimed at increasing reporting and transparency to drive overall accountability. I look forward to discussing the Government’s other amendments on accountability later today.
There has been significant interest in ensuring sufficient reporting, in particular of how the FCA and PRA are operationalising and advancing their new secondary competitiveness and growth objectives. The regulators are required to publish annual reports setting out how they have advanced their objectives, which are laid before Parliament. Clause 26 ensures that, in future, these reports must also set out how they have advanced the new secondary objectives.
Clause 37, introduced following the debate in Commons Committee, enables the Treasury to direct the FCA and PRA to report on performance where that is necessary for the scrutiny of their functions. To further support transparency, the Government published a call for proposals on 9 May, seeking views on what additional metrics the regulators should publish to support scrutiny of their work advancing their new objectives. This closes on 4 July.
The Government have been clear that they expect there will be a step change in the regulators’ approach to growth and competitiveness following the introduction of the new objectives, while maintaining high regulatory standards. It will therefore be important to have detailed information available to scrutinise how the regulators embed their new objectives into their day-to-day functions.
The Government have therefore tabled Amendment 11, which will require the FCA and the PRA to produce two reports within 12 and 24 months of the new objectives coming into force. These reports will set out how the new objectives have been embedded in their operations, and how they have been advanced. Once the new objectives have been embedded, it is appropriate that the regulators report on them in the same way as their other objectives, through their annual reports.
The Government have also heard the calls for further transparency to drive overall accountability in other areas of the regulators’ work. Clauses 27, 46 and Schedule 7 require the regulators to publish statements of policy on how they will review their rules. The Government’s response to the November 2021 FRF review consultation set out the regulators’ commitment to providing clear and appropriate channels for industry and other stakeholders to raise concerns about specific rules in their rule review framework.
Reflecting representations made during my engagement with noble Lords between Grand Committee and Report, the Government have tabled Amendments 20, 52 and 56, which strengthen this commitment. The amendments will place a statutory requirement on the regulators to provide a clear process for stakeholders, including the statutory panels, to make representations in relation to rules and a statutory requirement to set out how they will respond.
I hope that noble Lords will support these amendments, which seek to provide Parliament, the Government and stakeholders with the relevant information to effectively scrutinise the regulators’ performance and drive overall accountability. I therefore beg to move Amendment 11, and I intend to move the remaining government amendments in this group when they are reached.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in the second day of Report. I declare my financial services interests as set out in the register. I thank my noble friend the Minister and all the Treasury officials for their engagement during and particularly after Committee with the issues in this group of amendments.
I will speak to Amendments 12, 19, 40, 41 and 92 in my name. Noble Lords with an eagle eye on the Marshalled List will note that there is more than a similarity between the amendments I tabled in Committee and in this group, and the government amendments. I thank the Government sincerely for taking on board not just the issues but also my wording.
Ultimately, as the Minister said, this is one of the most significant changes to financial services regulation in a generation. It is important that, in structuring the role of the regulator, we have at this stage the right level of scrutiny and the right requirements for the regulators to provide the information required at the right time to undertake that scrutiny.
The arrival of the international competitiveness objective is a positive thing within the Bill. These amendments give scrutiny the right opportunity to see how that objective is operationalised. Does the Minister agree that it is important to look at every element of information and the timeliness of all the elements being given to both financial services regulators to enable the right level of scrutiny to take place? To that extent, I ask her to comment particularly on Amendment 92, alongside my other amendments, because this seems like no more than the base level of detail that one would want to be able to form that crucial scrutiny function.
Having said that, I am incredibly grateful to the Minister, the Government and all the officials for taking on board so many of the issues and the wording from Committee, and bringing them forward in this group.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I find myself in the very odd position of having to say that the Government have handled Committee stage consideration of the Bill brilliantly. The Minister listened to a lot of quite robust criticism of the Bill, some of it from me, on the issue of accountability. It is fair to say that, across all sides of the Committee, there was a feeling that it was essential that there be proper accountability and scrutiny, given that we are, in effect, giving the regulators all our financial services legislation. She spent a great deal of time talking to all noble Lords in Committee and listening to those concerns. I therefore support the government amendments and thank her and her colleagues for the brilliant way in which they responded to what was a very robust Committee.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, there is a certain amount of confusion about the competitiveness objective and it is important to clarify it in discussion on Report. To illustrate this point, we have to understand that London is a rather peculiar financial centre, because it has a very limited hinterland of domestic savings. It is unlike the United States, where New York has a huge hinterland of domestic savings. It is therefore necessary for London to attract savings and funding from around the world, and it does that brilliantly well.
An important component of that is that London is seen as a well-regulated and efficiently regulated centre. The primary objectives set out in FSMA of maintaining market confidence, financial stability, public awareness, protection of consumers and the reduction of financial crimes are competitiveness goals in and of themselves. They make London more competitive and are a crucial component of the success of London at attracting funds from around the world.
The competitiveness objective that was introduced as a subsidiary objective is rather different, because there competitiveness means being allowed to take more risk. As everyone knows, in financial affairs the balance of risk and return is one of the key elements in making sensible decisions. This is true as much in regulation as it is in the operation of financial services business. It is particularly true in regulation when it applies to systemic risks, which only the regulator can understand and deal with.
It is therefore important that we do not overegg the competitiveness objective. It is important—it has introduced an important element in discussing the relationship between risk and return—but we should recognise that the primary objectives are the key to London’s competitiveness as a financial centre.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I will comment briefly on government Amendment 11. The competitiveness and growth objective is a long-term, ongoing objective and, with the best will in the world, it is highly unlikely that we will see any discernible change in measurable competitiveness or growth in just two years. The objective does not end in two years and yet the amendment put forward by the Government has only two years’ worth of reporting.
As usual, the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, has put together an elegant solution in Amendment 12, which would create an ongoing annual reporting requirement, as well as being a bit more specific about what should be included within the reports. I understand from the Minister’s earlier speech that she expects this to be covered off in the normal annual reporting thereafter, and I think we can probably live with that.
I will add to the comments made by noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, with this caveat: I support the competitiveness and growth objective, but only as a secondary objective. The primary objective of stability must remain paramount. Can the Minister confirm that, as part of the reporting on the competitiveness and growth objective that is expected, the regulators will consider and report on the impact it is having on the primary stability objective? The two are not unconnected, as we have just heard, and it is really important that when we report on one, we also report on its impact on the other.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a director of two investment companies, as stated in the register. I agree to some extent with what the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, said, but I am not sure I can agree that the United Kingdom’s financial markets are uniquely peculiar in any sense. It is true that we do not have such a large domestic hinterland as the United States, but compared with financial centres such as Switzerland and Singapore, we have a rather larger domestic hinterland. I do not think what he said is therefore so relevant as he perhaps believes.
Furthermore, I agree that our high standards and what used to be called “my word is my bond”, which was what I was taught on day one when I went to work for Kleinwort Benson in the City, are very relevant. We have always been proud, and rightly so, of the very high standards and honourable way, in the main, in which our financial institutions have conducted their business. Indeed, competitiveness of the market depends, to a degree, on maintaining those high standards. But competitiveness also depends on having clear, comprehensible and proportionate regulation, and in recent years our regulation has become too cumbersome, particularly after the FSA was split into two regulators. If you are a dual-regulated company, it is a nightmare to have to report much the same information but in different formats to the two regulators. This is why the time spent by executive committees of operating financial companies in the City is so greatly taken up by compliance, reporting and regulatory matters, rather than innovation and the development of new businesses to attract more international companies to do their business in London, thus providing more revenue for the Exchequer and more jobs for British people, and indeed for non-British people to come and work here.
I support the Government’s amendments to strengthen the reporting requirements of the regulators, and Amendments 40 and 41 tabled by my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond. I agree with those noble Lords who have thanked the Minister most sincerely for her response to concerns expressed across the House about accountability and scrutiny. However, the British Insurance Brokers’ Association has expressed concern that the Bill, as drafted at present, largely allows the regulators to decide how to fulfil the reporting requirements for the competitiveness and growth objective.
Clause 37 acts as a backstop that allows the Treasury to compel additional reporting. What assurances can the Minister give that the Government’s response to the ongoing consultation on the appropriate metrics for the regulators to publish will lead to concrete changes to which metrics are published, given that the Bill will have been passed by the time the Government respond to the consultation? Given that it will not be possible to include any details of specific metrics or how the Treasury will exercise its powers in Clause 37 in primary legislation, how can the Government ensure that the consultation will lead to a sufficient challenge to the regulators, allaying concerns about them marking their own homework in their reporting? Will the Minister also give assurances that the Government’s response to the consultation will reflect the parliamentary debate in this area, where noble Lords have consistently stressed the need for extensive metrics to be published by the regulators with regard to the new objectives?
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I do not want to run the risk of repeating myself, but I have made plain in previous debates my concern about the inclusion of the competitiveness objective in this legislation. Just to be clear, I think it has no place, but I welcome these provisions that there should be a report on the competitiveness objective. My concern is that the wording does not get to the heart of the problem that I believe exists, which is the interaction between the competitiveness objective and the other objectives. My reading of the way this is worded is that the report just has to talk about the competitiveness objective and does not have to say how it affected the other objectives. Maybe the Minister in her reply could allay my concerns and make it clear that the regulatory bodies are required to look across the whole gamut of their obligations when reporting on the competitiveness objective.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interest as an employee of Marsh Ltd, the insurance broker. I offer my support to the amendments in this group, so thoughtfully proposed by my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond. My noble friend the Minister has indeed made improvements since Grand Committee, and for that I thank her, but I wonder whether the Government have gone quite far enough. I particularly thank the Minister for the generous amount of time she spent with me the other evening.
My noble friend the Minister’s amendment proposes two reports, 12 months apart, as has been mentioned, but I believe that it is important that reports from the regulators should become an annual occurrence concerning the competitiveness and growth objectives. The financial sector of the United Kingdom is a major driver of revenue for the country and we must ensure consistency over time, not just the immediate future. In turn, this suggests the need for consistent metrics on which to report, allowing for the proper comparisons.
Amendment 19 concerns the principle of proportionality, recognising that not all financial services are the same. Again, I will look at the insurance market in particular, but I suspect there are similarities in other financial lines. I am all for keeping individual retail and small business customers safe when working with insurance companies, but there are significant differences to be found between them, users of the London wholesale insurance market—which is used by knowledgeable buyers, using one of many potential advisers—and captive insurance entities. Smaller customers need a level of protection not required by either of these other two groups.
In the debate on this amendment, I wish to refer particularly to captive insurance companies. Captives are wholly owned subsidiaries set up to provide risk mitigation services—insurance—for their parent company and/or related entities. The parent is inevitably a sophisticated entity, almost certainly hiring advisers. They should require a very different approach from the retail customer.
There currently seems to be a one-size-fits-all approach by the regulators when reviewing insurance companies that does not take into account the nature of the purchaser. This is not only time consuming but costly in comparison with other overseas regimes. Captives provide low risk to the financial system and the buyer of their services requires a significantly different level of regulation from an insurance company trading with individuals. They are fundamentally different.
There is no captive company authorised in the UK and even those of our major companies, including UK public bodies, are located in overseas jurisdictions. The captive insurance business generates in excess of $50 billion annually, and here lies a significant opportunity for growth in the insurance sector which, should the regulator alter its stance and act with proportionality, could, as an example, add significant additional capital into the country.
Amendments 40 and 41 refer to the requirements to publish regulatory performance on authorised firms and new authorisations. The Government certainly recognise in Clause 37 the need to improve the regulatory culture, but we need more teeth in terms of reporting metrics so it becomes standard practice within the regulators. This culture needs to become ingrained.
The metrics being proposed in Amendment 40 are granular concerning timing and would bring some needed haste to the system. In business, time is often of the essence and being held up disproportionately by a UK regulator, as opposed those in other jurisdictions, acts as a deterrent to trade in this country. The metrics being proposed in Amendment 41 link together to give a consistent window into the activities of the regulators. With quarterly reporting it will be possible to gain some comparative statistics that will tell a story.
Lastly, Amendment 92 concerns determination of application. London remains one of the world centres of insurance and we must do all we can to preserve its status, but there are for sure a number of other locations that can attract capital more easily and so challenge it. Unfortunately, regulatory burden is regularly raised as an issue damaging London’s ability to attract additional capital and support the market.
Concerns have been raised about the overall performance of the regulators in terms of timing, with authorisations and approvals taking longer they should. It is recognised that they are falling behind their KPIs. Insurance companies here have experienced delays in case handler assignment, which is the beginning of a domino effect. In addition, concerns have been expressed over some of the questions asked and the appropriateness of the data being requested, leading to additional time and expense. The regulators need to streamline their activities by being relevant.
These amendments refer to a great extent to measures designed to bring some more accountability to the reporting by the regulators. I realise there is a consultation with the financial markets, but I believe that the measures being proposed are the bare minimum that should be required and included in the Bill. These sets of metrics will prevent the regulators deciding which of their own sets of data to publish. Certainly, from an insurance perspective, this will allow life to proceed way more freely. This will ensure transparency from the regulators, which is surely what is being strived for.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, the amendments in this group fall essentially into two categories. Those that improve communication and representation to statutory panels are small but positive improvements and, although I remain of the view that these panels should be given proper independence, I am glad to see that at least there is some improvement in the regime.
The other amendments I view very differently, and I will pick up the issues raised by the noble Lords, Lord Vaux and Lord Davies of Brixton, that if the reporting requirements included a proper consideration of how the competitiveness and growth objectives as they became operational were also impacting on financial stability, systemic risk and consumer protection, I would find myself very much in favour of them. But actually I regard them as a sort of slightly disguised mechanism to enhance the status of the secondary objectives to something which I think the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, described on Monday as “secondary plus”, or even “secondary plus plus”. I think that is exactly what these various amendments are intended to do.
This House knows well that I join Sir Paul Tucker, Sir John Vickers, pretty much every former Governor of the Bank of England and many others in regretting the introduction of these objectives because, for exactly the reason that others have said, they will incentivise and drive risky behaviour and we will come to rue that. So this further enhancement of these secondary objectives, very much driven by the industry—we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, how strong the feeling was that we try and get towards making these objectives either primary or close to primary—should be a warning to all of us. So I cannot give these amendments my support, although we are obviously not going to vote on them today. However, it is necessary that the House takes note of some degree of warning.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I realise that we are on Report, but I should have declared my interest as chairman of Secure Trust Bank. I understand that it is not enough to have done so in Committee; it needs to be done at each stage.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I will be very brief so as not to detain the House further. Much of the substance of these issues was debated in the previous group on Tuesday evening, when I said that we strongly support the inclusion in the Bill of the new secondary objective for the regulators of international competitiveness and economic growth.
While the introduction of this secondary objective is a positive step, it is also important to ensure that it is meaningfully considered in the regulators’ decision-making. One of the main ways of doing this is by introducing some proven accountability measures to require the regulators to report on their performance against the objective. We therefore welcome the government amendments in this group, which will provide for initial reports on implementation of the competitiveness and growth objective, as well as other provisions that seek to improve regulatory accountability.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for that constructive debate and I seek to engage only with the points that have been raised.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, that high regulatory standards are a key to London’s and the UK’s competitiveness as a financial centre. That is why the growth and competitiveness objective is a secondary objective to the primary objectives already in existence. However, high regulatory standards are not the only contributor to the growth and competitiveness of our economy or the sector. The new secondary objective, therefore, has an important role to play.
To address specifically the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, on day one of Report—the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, reflected on that again today—that the government amendments in this area somehow seek to elevate the secondary objective from its position within the hierarchy, that is not the case. These amendments reflect the fact that they are new objectives for the regulators and it is right that we have a focus on new objectives being added through the Bill to understand how they are being embedded into the operation of the regulators.
The noble Lords, Lord Vaux and Lord Davies of Brixton, asked how the reporting will take into account the fact that the objectives are secondary and how they will impact on the primary objectives. It is in the structure of the objectives that the growth and competitiveness objective can be delivered only in the context of achieving the primary objectives. That is built into the system. Each year, in addition to these two reports provided for in our amendment, there will be the annual report from the regulators looking at their delivery across all their objectives.
Several noble Lords asked whether having a report on this specific objective for just two years was the right approach. We think it strikes the balance between reflecting the new nature of these objectives and, over time, integrating them into the working of the regulators and reporting them in future annual reports. However, I point out to noble Lords that the Government have the power to specify certain matters to be addressed in those annual reports if we think it necessary in future. Under Clause 37, we also have the power to require further reporting on certain matters, so if the Government felt that further focus on the embedding of these new objectives was needed, there are powers in the Bill that would allow that to be drawn out.
My noble friends Lord Trenchard and Lord Ashcombe, and others, raised concerns about the need for specific metrics for reporting the regulators’ delivery against their objectives, as set out in my noble friend’s amendment. As noble Lords recognise, that is exactly the purpose of the Government’s current call for proposals. We do not think it is right to have the metrics in the Bill, because that would hinder the objectives that my noble friends are talking about, in terms of having the best possible set of metrics that can be adapted and updated to ensure that Parliament, industry and the Government get the information that they need on the regulators’ performance.
My noble friends Lord Holmes and Lord Ashcombe also drew attention to Amendment 92 in this group. I am aware that the speed and effectiveness with which the regulators process applications for authorisation remains an area of concern for both Parliament and industry, and the Government share those concerns. In December, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury wrote to the CEOs of the PRA and the FCA, setting out the importance of ensuring that the UK has world-leading levels of regulatory operational effectiveness. Publishing more and better data detailing the FCA and PRA’s performance is critical to meeting these aims. That is why, in their reply to the Economic Secretary’s letter, both CEOs committed to publishing more detailed performance data in relation to authorisation processes on a quarterly basis.
On 19 May, both the FCA and the PRA published their first set of enhanced quarterly metrics relating to their authorisations performance, including the average time taken to process applications. The reports demonstrate that the regulators, particularly the FCA, are making progress towards meeting service-level targets, while recognising that there are further improvements to be made on some measures. The Government will continue to monitor this data to assess performance and discuss continuing efforts to improve operational efficiency with the regulators.
I am glad to have heard the general support for the Government’s amendments in this group. As my noble friend Lord Holmes said, we drew heavy inspiration from his contributions in Committee, and those of other noble Lords.
Lord Holmes of Richmond
“Financial Inclusion Objective for the FCA
(1) FSMA 2000 is amended as follows.(2) In section 1B (FCA’s general duties), after subsection (4A) insert—“(4B) When discharging its general functions in the way mentioned in subsection (1) the FCA must, so far as reasonably possible, act in a way which, as a secondary objective, advances the financial inclusion objective (see section 1EC).”(3) After section 1EB insert— “1ECFinancial Inclusion ObjectiveThe financial inclusion objective is: facilitating as far as is practical, the inclusivity of the UK’s financial system.””
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, there are currently quite a few difficulties with the UK economy, but one that seldom gets the focus, attention and commentary that it requires is the lack of financial inclusion for so many people right across the United Kingdom. At its extreme, it is best summed up as: those who have the least are often forced to pay the most for financial services and products. However, it is a question not just for individuals but for micro and small businesses, which can find themselves effectively financially excluded.
Amendment 13 simply seeks to introduce a secondary objective for the FCA on financial inclusion. It would not in any sense fetter any of the other objectives, not least the primary objectives. It could operate effectively and efficiently within that current stream of objectives for the regulator.
Without in any sense seeking to pre-empt my noble friend when she comes to wind up, I think that she may well say that it is not the right approach to introduce a new objective for the financial service regulators without first undertaking a significant and serious consultation. That is a fair point. If she is unable to accept my Amendment 13, would she agree to take away the opportunity and possibility to launch the consultation into a secondary objective for our financial service regulators on financial inclusion? I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, my Amendment 14 proposes a new clause to the objectives, adding the principle of protecting the mental health of consumers. I set this out at some length in Committee, and I think it is worth repeating the point. I should perhaps say at the beginning that I support the other two amendments, although I prefer the one from my Front Bench. I would like to see an explicit statement that the concept of financial inclusion extends to people who have problems dealing with financial services because of problems with their mental health.
Financial services have to understand and recognise the nature and scale of the mental health problems faced by some people. They need to be placed under an explicit duty of care to their customers who suffer from these problems, and they should be required to take explicit additional steps to minimise the potential difficulties faced by those who have or are at risk of having mental health problems associated with their finances.
I am sure that all noble Lords accept the principle that financial regulation should pay regard to the problems faced by people who have problems with mental health. It goes almost without saying. The issue is not about the principle but about whether it should be referred to explicitly in this bit of the legislation. I think that it should, but I am willing to take small mercies if the Minister can make clear the explicit and implicit responsibilities on the regulators to undertake to provide this sort of support and explanation for people who have mental health problems.
The experience works both ways: financial problems lead to mental health problems, and people with mental health problems have difficulty in handling their finances. That is an established fact. I ask for general support for the principle and an indication that, one way or another, the legislation will provide these people with the support they require.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I thought it might be useful to speak at this point to introduce Amendment 18, the amendment in my name in this group. I have taken part in many discussions in this House on financial inclusion. It is to this House’s credit that such a keen interest is taken by Members on all sides on this topic. Financial exclusion is a priority concern for the Labour Party. It is often caused by the way that financial products are designed and marketed. Of course, poverty and the cost of living crisis plays a huge part in this: they mean that the poorest often pay more in fees for products, but there are even things like mobile phones not being available on a contract unless you have a bank account. We know that all these issues can make life more expensive for people who can least afford it.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I have attached my name to Amendment 14 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, who very powerfully introduced it. I associate myself with all his comments. Essentially, he was talking about reasonable adjustments for people with mental health conditions in dealing with the financial sector.
I will briefly address this consumer protection objective from the other side, which is that the financial sector should not make people ill. I am sure the Minister will recall the meeting we had a couple of months ago with mortgage prisoners. At that meeting, we heard some testimony about the impacts of how people had been trapped in the system and suffered enormously as a result.
I want to reflect on two things. The first is the figures that have come out since Committee and the fact that the head of UK Finance has labelled the UK the fraud capital of the world, with fraud last year estimated at £1.2 billion. That reflects the fact that very many people now approach any interaction with the financial sector with a sense of fear, asking, “Is this true?”, “Is this right?”, “Is this a proper email?” This is something that the financial sector needs to do more to address so that people are not suffering that stress and pressure.
The second thing is that I know some individuals who are somewhat older than me who find that there is an inability to walk into a branch and deal with an issue by having a person solving your problems face to face. People spend weeks and weeks trapped in cycles of emails and phone calls. No one can ever solve your problem and you never speak to the same person twice. That has serious impacts on people’s lives and well-being. We need to acknowledge that and say to the banks that this is not acceptable and not good enough.
On the financial inclusion amendments, I have spoken about this at some length so I will not go over the same ground. However, it is clear, in all the amendments in this group, that the financial sector is not meeting the needs of our society. As a Parliament, we need to ensure we do more to make sure that it does.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 18 in the name of my noble friend Lady Chapman, while also recognising the contribution made in the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and my noble friend Lord Davies.
This is an extremely urgent matter because between 6 million and 7 million of our fellow citizens conduct all their financial affairs in cash. Cash is becoming increasingly unacceptable in a whole series of financial transactions that are conducted by electronic means. This means that cash is ceasing to be money, because money is something which is generally accepted in payment of a debt. If you cannot use cash to buy things, it is no longer money.
It is therefore necessary for both the Bank of England and the Treasury to consider making available to all citizens in this country a means of electronic payment. That is a big challenge, but it is urgent because we are all aware that, over the next decade, virtually everything will be entirely electronic and cash will be unacceptable in most transactions. My noble friend Lady Chapman has hit the nail right on the head by saying that this is a consumer protection objective. That 10% of our fellow citizens needs to be protected by financial inclusion in this way. This is an urgent matter which should not be postponed.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, in speaking to this group I am channelling my colleague, my noble friend Lady Tyler of Enfield, who is unwell and, to her distress, cannot be here. I will focus on Amendment 18, which she has signed, which would require the FCA to have regard to financial inclusion within the consumer protection objective. My noble friend Lady Tyler chaired the Select Committee on Financial Exclusion in 2017 and this was a cornerstone recommendation. A further Lords review in 2020 came to the same conclusion, as did the Treasury Select Committee in 2022.
My noble friend Lady Tyler made a powerful speech in Committee so I will not repeat the detail, but I will cite the briefing I have received from Fair4All Finance, which finds that more than 17 million people—I previously used the number the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, used of between 6 million and 7 million people who are under stress for this—in the UK are in financially vulnerable circumstances, with access to credit being increasingly difficult. We will discuss access to cash later.
Endless years of discussion on this topic have failed to significantly move the dial. Basic bank accounts are a little improved but still limited. The hopes for credit unions or fintech solutions have faded. Frankly, nothing will change unless the FCA puts its shoulder to the wheel. Amendment 18, if noble Lords look at it in detail, is not the introduction of a new objective; it is a clarification of the consumer objective through a “have regard” duty. In that way, it is different from the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes—which I do not object to, but the Government have frequently said that we cannot have additional objectives. This is not an additional objective; it is clarification and emphasis of a key aspect of an objective.
Amendment 18 does not ask the FCA to step into territory which the Government have said is theirs—to close the gap on financial inclusion—but to use powers within its existing scope, which it has shown us it will not do without this emphasis from Parliament. I very much support Amendment 18 and consequently hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, will ensure that it is tested in the House if the Government do not accept it—although government acceptance is of course the preferred route for us all.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to ensuring that people, regardless of their background or income, have access to useful and affordable financial services and products. We work closely with the FCA in pursuit of that goal.
The FCA’s strategic objective is to ensure that relevant markets function well. Its operational objectives are to secure an appropriate degree of protection for consumers, to protect and enhance the integrity of the UK financial system and to promote effective competition in the interests of consumers. The FCA’s objectives are at the very core of its work, and it is its statutory remit to advance those objectives. While I therefore commend the intention behind Amendments 13 and 18, the FCA’s objectives should not be changed lightly and without detailed consultation, given the potential for unintended consequences for the way financial services are regulated in the UK.
Noble Lords will be aware that the new secondary growth and competitiveness objectives introduced by the Bill were the subject of in-depth consultation in several stages, to ensure that the legislation will have its intended effect. While some respondents to that consultation process raised the issue of requiring the regulators to have regard to financial inclusion, there was no consensus on this proposal in terms of approach or effect.
My noble friend invited me to take up the opportunity to consult further on this matter, anticipating what I might say. However, as I have just reflected, this was, in part, considered in the work that was done in the lead-up to the Bill, which took place over several years, and we have been considering the Bill before us for nearly a year. So, while I have heard the views raised in this debate, there has also been a strong feeling over the course of the Bill that there is a desire for the Government and regulators, once we have the Bill in place, to press ahead and use the powers in it to deliver regulatory reform. I do not think that further consultation on further changes to the objectives at this stage would be the right approach.
As I said, this was considered as part of the FRF review. Indeed, in its consideration of these matters, the Treasury Select Committee specified in its future of financial services regulation inquiry that it did not recommend that any changes related to financial inclusion should be made to the regulator’s objectives, noting that financial inclusion is a broader social issue and that the primary role of the FCA should not be to carry out social policy.
The FCA’s consumer protection objective requires it to protect consumers from poor conduct by financial services firms. Financial exclusion is driven by many factors which may not be attributable to firms’ conduct. Given this, the consumer protection objective is not the appropriate place to seek to address financial inclusion. Indeed, an objective to protect consumers from harm may, at times, be in tension with an objective to increase financial inclusion. For example, certain credit products or investments may not be appropriate in all circumstances and could be detrimental to a consumer’s financial situation and well-being. The FCA will already seek to balance this through developing its rules and interventions, but that means that adding a formal requirement to advance financial inclusion as part of the consumer protection objective risks adding complexity and uncertainty to one of the most important parts of the FCA’s work.
Where there are gaps in the market which mean that some consumers struggle to access appropriate products, it is right that the Government seek to tackle these. I hope that noble Lords will be reassured that we are taking, and will continue to take, action. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, spoke of the importance of cash to many. That is why the Government are taking unprecedented action in the Bill to protect access to cash.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, referred to—
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
I actually said the opposite; access to cash will not be useful if the cash cannot be used to make a transaction. Increasingly, transactions cannot be made with cash but only electronically.
Baroness Penn (Con)
Some of the implications of the noble Lord’s contribution on potentially obliging people to use certain payment systems show that including financial inclusion under the consumer protection objective could have quite far-reaching consequences that we would want fully to think through and consult on before changing the objectives. That lies behind the Government’s concern about this approach.
As I was saying, this does not mean that there is no action to promote financial inclusion by the Government and the regulators. Major banks are required to provide basic bank accounts for those who would otherwise be unbanked. As of June last year, there were 7.4 million basic bank accounts open and during 2020-21 around 70,000 basic bank account customers were upgraded to standard personal current accounts, graduating to more mainstream financial services products. The FCA’s financial lives survey has shown that those aged over 75 are becoming more digitally included, with 64% digitally active in 2020 compared to 41% in 2017. However, we absolutely recognise that there is more work to be done in this area. The Government have allocated £100 million of dormant asset funding to Fair4All Finance, which is being used to improve access to affordable credit, with a further £45 million allocated recently to deliver initiatives to support those struggling with the increased cost of living.
While the FCA has an important role to play in supporting financial inclusion, it is already able to act where appropriate. For example, it has previously intervened in the travel insurance market to help consumers with pre-existing medical conditions access affordable credit. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, recognised, the new consumer duty developed by the FCA is yet to come into force and we are yet to feel the full benefits of that. However, importantly, these issues cannot be solved through regulation alone. Where there are gaps in the provision of products to consumers, the Government will continue to work closely with the FCA and other key players across industry and the third sector to address them.
I turn to Amendment 14 from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton. I reassure him that the FCA is already well placed to take into account the protection of consumers’ mental health within its existing objectives. The regulator’s vulnerability guidance sets out a number of best practices for firms, from upskilling staff to product service and design, and specifically recognises poor mental health as a driver of consumer vulnerability. Where FCA-authorised firms fail to meet their obligations to treat customers fairly, including those in vulnerable circumstances, the FCA is already empowered to take further action. Since the publication of the vulnerability guidance, the FCA has engaged with firms that are not meeting their obligations and agreed remedial steps.
In summary, the Government believe that this is an incredibly important issue but consider that it is for the Government to lead on the broader issues of financial inclusion. Where necessary, in the existing framework the FCA is able to have the appropriate powers to support work on this important issue. While the Government do not support these amendments, I hope that I have set out how they are committed to making further progress in this area. I therefore hope that my noble friend Lord Holmes will withdraw his amendment and that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, will not press theirs when they are reached.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has participated in this debate, and my noble friend the Minister for her response. This will continue to be a significant issue until we have something in the country which looks far more like financial inclusion for all those who are currently feeling the sharp end, or the wrong end, and who are shut out of so much of what passes for financial services today. However, having listened to my noble friend the Minister, I will not push this matter any further today. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 13.
Baroness Hayman
“(c) the need to contribute towards achieving compliance with sections 1 (the target for 2050) and 4(1)(b) (net UK carbon account) of the Climate Change Act 2008, and the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment, including compliance with relevant targets approved by Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru, and the Northern Ireland Assembly.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds nature to the new regulatory principle on net zero emissions.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, when we debated this on Tuesday evening I was greatly encouraged by the support from all sides of the House for adding nature, alongside net zero, to the regulatory principles in the Bill. We also had support externally, particularly from Professor Dasgupta himself. I am afraid that I did not find the Minister’s arguments compelling, and therefore I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Penn
“(1A) In section 1JA (Treasury recommendations in connection with general duties), after subsection (1)(c) insert—“(ca) how to discharge the duty in section 1B(4A)(duty to advance competitiveness and growth objective),”.(1B) In section 1K (guidance about objectives), after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) The reference in subsection (1) to the FCA’s operational objectives includes, in its application as a secondary objective, the competitiveness and growth objective (see section 1EB).”.(1C) In section 2I (guidance about objectives), after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) The reference in subsection (1) to the PRA’s objectives includes, in their application as secondary objectives, the competition objective and competitiveness and growth objective (see section 2H).”.(1D) In section 3B (regulatory principles to be applied by both regulators), for subsection (3) substitute—“(3) “Objectives”—(a) in relation to the FCA means— (i) operational objectives, and(ii) in its application as a secondary objective, the competitiveness and growth objective (see section 1EB), and(b) in relation to the PRA means—(i) the PRA’s objectives, and(ii) in their application as secondary objectives, the competition objective and competitiveness and growth objective (see section 2H).”.(1E) In section 3D (duty of FCA and PRA to ensure co-ordinated exercise of functions), for subsection (4) substitute—“(4) In this section, “objectives”—(a) in relation to the FCA means—(i) operational objectives, and(ii) in its application as a secondary objective, the competitiveness and growth objective (see section 1EB), and(b) in relation to the PRA means—(i) the PRA’s objectives, and(ii) in their application as secondary objectives, the competition objective and competitiveness and growth objective (see section 2H).(5) Where a regulator is proposing to exercise a function that is not one of its general functions, the reference to “objectives” in subsection (1)(a) does not include the secondary objectives mentioned in subsection (4)(a)(ii) and (b)(ii).(6) In this section, “general functions”—(a) in relation to the FCA, has the same meaning as in section 1B(6), and(b) in relation to the PRA, has the same meaning as in section 2J(1).”.(1F) In section 138I (consultation by the FCA), in subsection (2)(d) after “1B(1)” insert “, (4A)”.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that provisions of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 that refer to the objectives of the FCA and the PRA also include a reference to the new competitiveness and growth objective, as inserted by Clause 24 of the Bill.
“(2A) In section 232A (scheme operator’s duty to provide information to FCA)—(a) the existing words become subsection (1), and(b) after that subsection insert—“(2) The reference in subsection (1) to the FCA’s operational objectives includes, in its application as a secondary objective, the competitiveness and growth objective (see section 1EB).””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that section 232A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 includes a reference to the competitiveness and growth objective, as inserted by Clause 24 of the Bill.
“FCA to have regard to financial inclusion within consumer protection objective
(1) FSMA 2000 is amended as follows.(2) In section 1C (the consumer protection objective), after subsection (2)(c) insert—“(ca) financial inclusion;”.”
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, we are very disappointed with the Government’s response on this matter so far. They are wilfully not engaging with this topic in the way that we would like. Financial inclusion is relevant to the regulation of financial services. How products are designed, marketed and administered and how advice is provided are all of concern to the FCA and directly important to financial inclusion. There have been piecemeal interventions, which the Government say are welcome, but we would like to see more at this stage. I wish to test the will of the House.
Baroness Penn
“(1A) The statement must provide information about—(a) how representations (including by a statutory panel) can be made to each regulator with respect to its review of rules under section 3RA, and(b) the arrangements to ensure that those representations are considered.(1B) In this section “statutory panel” has the meaning given by section 1RB(5).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would impose a duty on the FCA and PRA to ensure that those regulators include in their statements of policy about the review of rules (required by section 3RB of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, as inserted by Clause 27) information about how representations (including by statutory panels) can be made and considered.
(iii) advance the competitiveness and growth objective;”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that new section 3RD of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, as inserted by Clause 27 of the Bill, includes, for the purposes of the FCA’s report, a reference to the competitiveness and growth objective, as inserted by Clause 24 of the Bill.
(ii) advance the PRA’s competition objective and the PRA’s competitiveness and growth objective;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that new section 3RD of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, as inserted by Clause 27 of the Bill, includes, for the purposes of the PRA’s report, a reference to the competition objective and the competitiveness and growth objective, as inserted by Clause 24 of the Bill. (The words after “review” in section 3RD(2)(b) would become sub-paragraph (i)).
Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill
Thursday 8th June 2023
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 View all Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 141-I Motions for Consideration of Commons Reasons - (7 Jun 2023)
14:00 - Division on Motion B1 - Ayes: 182 / Noes: 150 - Motion B1 agreed.
14:46 - Division on Motion C1 - Ayes: 180 / Noes: 150 - Motion C1 agreed.
14:47 - Division on Motion D1 - Ayes: 179 / Noes: 148 - Motion D1 agreed.
Lord Callanan
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I will also speak to Motion B. I will speak to both the Motions to not insist on these amendments and to resist Motions A1 and B1, which are amendments in lieu tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
I am delighted to be in the Chamber again following the consideration of this House’s amendments to the Bill in the other place. Although there was a thorough debate of these amendments and those we will look at next, they have been thoroughly rejected by the other place, which has resolved against amendments that would either delay implementation of the Bill or prevent it from achieving any of its policy objectives.
I recognise that this is a topic that Members of both Houses are passionate about and I agree with my colleague, the Minister for Enterprise, Markets and Small Business, that we have had a robust debate on it. However, I point out to the House that the other place resolved against these amendments by significant majorities of 61 and 55 respectively, which are significantly larger than the majorities of 24 and 31 that amended the Bill in the first place. That is also the case for the amendments that we will discuss in the next group. The elected Chamber has therefore given the Bill and the amendments made here its due consideration and Members there have made the position of their House very clear.
The House will be delighted to know that I do not intend to repeat the debate and the arguments that we have heard on the detail of the Bill here; the Government have already clearly set out their intentions and perspective here, which are reflected in the reasons for disagreement that have come back to us. The Government’s position, and that of the elected Chamber, is clear and I can confirm that the Government have no plans to concede on these issues given the ongoing industrial disputes that show the need for this Bill now more than ever. I therefore ask that noble Lords respect the clear wishes of the other place and, while of course I am always grateful for noble Lords’ insight, passion and expertise on this matter, I hope that this House does not insist on these amendments.
I will now address the amendments in lieu that have been tabled. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for his Motion A1, which seeks to limit the application of this Bill to England only, unless the Scottish Parliament and Senedd Cymru agree by resolution for it to apply in those nations. The noble and learned Lord submitted a similar amendment on Report and the Government continue to resist this change for the reasons that I set out then.
First, it is a statutory discretion for the employer as to whether to issue a work notice, taking into account any other legal requirements that the employer may have. However, more fundamentally, the purpose and substance of the Bill is to regulate employment rights and duties and industrial relations. This is a reserved matter, so the consent of devolved Parliaments for this legislation is rightly not required. To add in a requirement for this, as the amendment seeks to do, would create significant inconsistency with wider employment law and I suggest that it would also disturb the careful balance of the UK’s devolution settlement. We will of course, as we have throughout the passage of the Bill, continue to seek to engage with the devolved Governments as part of the development of minimum service levels in those areas.
Finally, Motion B1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, relates to additional consultation requirements, assessment of impacts of the legislation and parliamentary scrutiny. As has been made clear to this House many times, sufficient checks and balances are already built into the legislation before regulations can be made. Motion B1 would delay implementation of minimum service levels for an indefinite period and thus extend the disproportionate impact that strikes can have on the public. I am afraid that the Government simply cannot accept that.
This Government recognise the significant role that the UK Parliament has played in scrutinising instruments. New Section 234F already ensures that the regulations will receive the appropriate level of scrutiny by both Houses and are subject to usual processes for consultation. I therefore urge this House not to amend the Bill in such a way that would cause significant delay to implementing minimum service levels, use up precious parliamentary time to duplicate parliamentary procedures and set some unhelpful precedents for future legislation. For all those reasons, the Government resist Motions A1 and B1 and I hope that noble Lords will agree not to press them. I beg to move.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd
Moved by
At end insert “and do propose Amendment 1B in lieu—
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, as this is the first occasion on which a devolution issue has arisen this week, let me make one short observation about the enormous contribution that Lord Morris of Aberavon made to devolution and to using and utilising devolution within the context of the United Kingdom. He can truly be regarded as a father of Welsh devolution and he made an enormous contribution to strengthening the position of Wales within the union.
I turn to my Motion. There are six brief points that I wish to make—and they will be brief, I must emphasise. First, this is not a reserved matter; I fundamentally disagree with the position stated by the Government. If we look at the reality of this Bill, it is not to do with employment rights; it is plainly to do with services in Wales and Scotland. Indeed, it covers the most important services that are devolved. The legislation therefore did require a Sewel Motion and, as we know, that has not been forthcoming.
Secondly, the fact that the Government are prepared to legislate without observing the Sewel convention is, I regret to say, another illustration of the ignoring of this convention and, more generally, the Government’s action in ignoring conventions that underpin our unwritten constitution, putting it in danger. Actions of this kind are imperilling the union, which is the bedrock of our constitution.
Thirdly, and more fundamentally, what is being done is undemocratic. The Scottish Parliament and Senedd Cymru are responsible and accountable for the very services for which this legislation is being brought forward.
Fourthly, the extension of this Bill to Wales and Scotland is bad for the people of Wales and Scotland. If we look at this as a matter of practical reality, the UK Government are the Government of England in respect of these services. They know nothing about education, health, ambulances or the fire service in Wales, or the relationships with staff and employees and how the services run. It is structured differently in England from how it is structured in Wales and Scotland.
Fifthly, I think that it is disingenuous again to say that employers in Scotland and Wales can choose whether to give a work notice. As the Minister in the other place made clear, it is not in the Government’s view a free choice. Employers must consider contractual public law and other legal duties that they have. If this Government’s view is right—I do not agree with it—there is the unspoken consequence of legal action against those who fail in their duties. That is a real threat to the Governments in Scotland and Wales and their ability to manage a service in a way that is in the real interests of the people.
Sixthly, and finally, what this Bill does, in applying its provisions to Scotland and Wales, is to take away power from those who have a responsibility for the management of the relationship and who are accountable to their electorate.
However, on this issue of devolution, the Government —as the Minister made clear just now—have not moved, and plainly do not intend to move, an iota. They maintain their characteristic disdain for devolution. They continue to legislate to override the devolution arrangements. I think that it can be said that they believe with a singular superiority that they know better what is right for Wales and Scotland than their democratically elected Governments and Parliaments do. They seem not to care for the long-term consequences of this persistent conduct.
For these reasons, although it is regrettable for our constitution, union and democracy, unless others urge me to take a different view, I see no point in seeking to divide the House on issues on which the Government do not appear to wish to engage. By using their majority in the other place, they can impose their will on Scotland and Wales, which the Governments and Parliaments of Scotland and Wales do not want.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I will intervene very briefly, as I did at earlier stages of the Bill, having taken good note of the comments made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd.
I press on the Government the question of the definition of reserved powers. This goes broader than this amendment and may be something that needs to be looked at in another context, in its own right. Under those circumstances, I accept the lead that has been given by the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and I hope the Government keep the issue alive in their mind.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for moving this amendment. I too will be brief. It is important to restate the principles involved here. The Bill is one of a series from this Government that trespass boldly—I would say foolishly—on devolution. The United Kingdom Internal Market Act, the Procurement Bill and the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill do so distinctly, but this Bill takes it to another level. The overwhelming majority of the list of services for which it seeks to set minimum standards and take control are devolved services, and the noble and learned Lord spoke about this. Add to this the Government’s habit of ignoring the need for legislative consent Motions and we are well on the way to a constitutional crisis, which this Government seem openly to invite.
Even now, the Government do not seem to have decided how to develop and impose minimum service levels. Back in March, the Constitution Committee expressed surprise at this in its report, and it is significant that we are still at this point in June. It is nonsense to imagine that the Government can impose minimum service levels, in effect from a distance, on a service for which they have no responsibility at any level, and, in the case of Welsh-medium education, for which they do not even understand the language in which the rules and standards are written.
As it stands, the Bill is unworkable and damaging. The noble and learned Lord’s original amendment, which was agreed by the House, sought to limit the scope of the Bill. The elegance of the new amendment is that it would allow the devolved Administrations to give agreement in the normal way.
In the different political climate of the past, in devolution as it used to be practised and operate, there would be discussions, co-operation, compromises and ultimately agreement between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. There would be legislative consent Motions agreed before we agreed legislation here. The norms have gone and that is a serious problem for our future democracy.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, can I make a simple point? This is nonsense, because all the services are devolved, as has been said. I am not totally in agreement with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, but these are probably not reserved powers. Even if they were, how on earth can a Secretary of State for Health in Elephant and Castle or wherever he now lives make rules about hospitals in Glasgow, fire engines in Edinburgh or education establishments in Aberdeen? It just will not work. For that reason, I am very dubious about this legislation. It does not apply to Northern Ireland anyway. Putting it into a Bill is silly—that is the only word for it—because we are being asked to pass legislation which manifestly will do no good and will not work, and I am sorry that the Government are pursuing it.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, it is a sad fact that this Bill so casually breaches the Sewel convention, which exists to uphold democratic accountability and provide for stable provision of public services. Wherever you live in the United Kingdom, nothing should interfere with those basic considerations. They dictate how services are designed and delivered and who has a say over them, whether that be in the hospital you are rushed to or the school you take your children to. In overriding Parliaments in Wales and Scotland, United Kingdom Ministers are treating those services as incidental or of lesser significance and weakening the say of patients and parents.
This is a problem not just for Wales and Scotland; it is a problem for England and the entire United Kingdom when the Government so regularly choose to sow confusion and division by breaching a convention that exists to help prevent both. We should not be in a position where a former Lord Chief Justice for England and Wales is forced to spell this out in relation to so many Bills. It is a measure of the Government’s consistent course that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, is put in such a position. I hope that the points he made will be taken on board, because the road that is going to be continued with is very dangerous for the union. That is why it is so important that Ministers listen.
I want to speak also to the other Motions in this group, which I had hoped the noble Lord from the Lib Dem Benches would move because I was intending to quote him. Nevertheless, on Motion B1, on which we are to hear from the noble Lord, across this House there is serious concern that, once again, Parliament is being sidelined. It is a fundamental issue of accountability and democracy. The Regulatory Policy Committee said that the impact assessment for the Bill is “not fit for purpose” and
“makes use of assumptions in the analysis which are not supported by evidence”.
Again, policy comes later and legislation first; it is ridiculous. We should not have that sort of situation, especially as it impinges on fundamental rights, particularly the right which the Minister constantly says he is prepared to protect: the right to strike.
Employers as well as unions share concerns that the provisions are unworkable and have the opposite effect to that claimed by the Government, will damage co-operation and will undermine voluntary agreements that deliver minimum service levels, the very thing that the Bill is meant to address. This is an imposition and simply will not work. The Delegated Powers Committee said that ministerial powers to set minimum service levels through regulations and define what constitutes a relevant service are inappropriate in the absence of convincing explanation by Ministers. Throughout Report, we heard no convincing arguments on this. The fact of the matter is that, when we heard from Ministers responsible for relevant sections of the Bill, they all said that voluntary arrangements are best and that they work. But, when you undermine those voluntary arrangements, you put the public—the thing that you want to try to protect—at risk.
As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said on Report—I will have to quote his speech from then rather than today—
“This amendment seeks to bolster Parliament’s oversight. It would require a consultation to be carried out and … reviewed by a committee of each House of Parliament”,—[Official Report, 26/4/23; col. 1223.]
prior to regulations being made. This is absolutely essential if we are to see good legislation rather than simply negative narratives. Those consulted would include relevant unions, employers and other interested parties across the United Kingdom. This is vital to ensure consistency. I conclude by saying that I hope the noble Lord, Lord Fox, will seek the support of the whole House.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I was so enjoying the debate on Motion A1 that I failed to stand up and speak to Motion B1 in my name. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for not providing him with sufficient up-to-date quotations, but he seemed to manage. We have spent so much time on the Bill together that we probably know how each other thinks.
We are in familiar territory, and indeed were too with Motion A1, because this is a long-repeated trope of this Government. They seek to override not only the devolved authorities but our own Parliament here. Bill after Bill has measures that take powers that should rightfully be vested in Parliament and lodge them firmly with the Executive, with very little or negligible recourse. This amendment seeks to regain that balance.
We have had similar discussions many times. I will not go over all these, but I will remind the House very briefly why, in this case, it is very important. The centrepiece of this legislation is a system of predetermined minimum service levels which may be used by employers to determine the minimum manning levels in the event of a strike. If a strike is called, specific work orders have to be or may be issued, requiring named individuals to ignore the strike and go to work. If they do not, as the Bill stands, they can be sacked.
The scale of the minimum service level is key. The nearer it is to 100% of normal service, the smaller the number of people who can legitimately and legally strike becomes—to the point that it becomes almost zero, or zero, and strikes are banned. This is not an abstract argument: if you look at certain areas of emergency care or issues such as rail track signalling, it is clear that a very high level of presenteeism will be required to run those services. In effect, those people on that work order will therefore have their right to strike banned. Speaking as a Liberal, I say that this is a libertarian issue that we find very important.
The setting of these minimum services levels is a vital part of how this Bill will operate. As the Minister has said, some non-binding consultation is under way but as things stand, to all intents and purposes the scale of the minimum service levels is the Secretary of State’s decision and theirs alone. We find that unacceptable.
The Commons declined our last amendment on the grounds that there is “adequate consultation”. We think that there is not and would like to ask the Commons to revisit that process. This amendment would require that consultation takes place and is reviewed by a committee of each House of Parliament prior to regulations being made. That consultation would be more formal and set out in some detail compared to the informal and ad hoc nature of the consultation that is going on. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Collins, when he was quoting me, those consulted will include the relevant unions, employers and other interested parties and would include an assessment of the impact on the rights of those workers.
The Minister talked about time and how this would wrap up the process into indefinite time. I remind your Lordships that the original Bill from which this Bill is generated started about a year ago. That Bill of course referred to what was in the Conservative Party manifesto, unlike this one, which has been broadened way beyond the scope of what was in the manifesto. The Government have shown themselves very adept at setting up time for such things to be debated, yesterday being an example. I am sure that time is not the issue—“won’t” rather than “can’t” is what we are dealing with here.
In short, we seek through this Motion to regularise the consultation process and give a mandatory role for Parliament that is far more than we see. With most Governments, this might not be controversial but with this one there has been a pattern and it is systematic, so here we seek to reassert the role of parliamentary democracy. My noble friend talked about there being the potential for a constitutional crisis around the treatment of government and the devolved authorities, I think we are already heading in the same direction with the treatment by this Government of our Parliament.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I thank all those who have contributed. The House will be pleased to know that I do not intend to detain noble Lords for very long. We have debated these matters extensively on a number of occasions in a very rigorous manner, so I do not intend to repeat all the arguments. But, let me just say very briefly, particularly in response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, that we are certain that the minimum service levels are a reserved matter. They are reserved because they obviously apply only when there are strikes, which fall within employment rights and industrial relations. This is clearly a reserved matter under each of the devolution settlements for Scotland and Wales. Put another way, the Bill amends the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, the subject of which is specifically reserved under each of these settlements. I always hesitate to disagree with distinguished lawyers on matters of law but I am afraid that we just have a different opinion on this.
I addressed the points from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in my opening remarks and will not repeat that. I acknowledge all those who have spoken. I understand the strength of opinion in the House on this but once again I point the House towards the other place—the elected place—and the clear will it has expressed on these matters. I urge the House not to prolong this matter unnecessarily and, while it looks as though we are going to vote on the Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I am grateful that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, indicated that he would not be dividing the House.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I beg the House’s leave to withdraw my Motion.
Lord Callanan
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A.
“(5) Minimum service regulations may only be made if—(a) the Secretary of State has published draft regulations;(b) the Secretary of State has conducted an impact assessment of the effect of the draft regulations on the services to which the draft regulations relate, addressing, in particular, the effect—(i) on the general public,(ii) on the conduct of these services, and(iii) on the conduct and effectiveness of the exercise of the right to strike in those services;(c) the Secretary of State has conducted a consultation with the representatives of trade unions, employers and any other interested party on the draft regulations and on the effect of the draft regulations on the services to which they relate, and in particular on the effect—(i) on the general public,(ii) on the conduct of those services, and(iii) on the conduct and effectiveness of the exercise of the right to strike in those services,and has laid before Parliament a report on that consultation;
(d) the Secretary of State has placed before a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament convened for the purpose of reviewing them the impact assessment under paragraph (b) and the report under paragraph (c) and the Joint Committee’s review has been published in a report to Parliament.””
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, having heard the arguments many times, I would still like to test the will of the House.
Lord Callanan
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 4 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 4A.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, in moving Motion C, with the leave of the House, I will also speak to Motion D.
Motions C and D in my name cover this House’s Amendments 4, 5, 6 and 7, which removed key parts of the legislation that are necessary to make it effective and to ensure that minimum service levels can in fact be achieved. It is therefore unsurprising that the other place resolved against these amendments with, I remind the House once again, larger majorities than those that amended the Bill in this House. The Government continue to maintain that the approach taken by this legislation is fair and proportionate. To achieve a minimum service level, employers, workers and trade unions all have their part to play.
Motion C and the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, proposed in lieu of Lords Amendment 4, deal with the consequences of non-compliance with a work notice. As I have said previously, the approach taken by this legislation is fair and proportionate. It enables employers to manage instances of non-compliance in exactly the same way that they would with any other unauthorised absence.
As I have made clear on a number of occasions, an employee losing their automatic protection from unfair dismissal for industrial action, if they participated in a strike contrary to a work notice, does not automatically mean that they will be dismissed—just as failing to attend work without a valid reason normally does not mean that they will be dismissed. It simply enables employers to pursue disciplinary action if they believe it is appropriate, but it is ultimately at the discretion of the employer. I believe that this is the right approach to ensure that minimum service levels will be achieved, while protecting workers in a way that aligns with existing legislation. On that basis, I resist the amendment proposed in lieu.
On Motion D, which covers the role of trade unions, it appears in the amendment proposed in lieu of Lords Amendment 5 that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, accepts that there may be a role for unions to play in ensuring that minimum service levels can be met. However, I strongly believe that it cannot be at the discretion of a trade union as to whether and how it advises and encourages its members to comply with work notices. There must be some consequences if they do not take reasonable steps. On that basis, the Government therefore resist this amendment.
I have noted the feedback from the House, including in the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The Government are willing to consider whether there may be a case for providing further details on what “reasonable steps” are and what it means for trade unions. What we cannot do, however, is accept an amendment such as the one proposed. Without a responsibility for unions to ensure that their members comply, and without any incentives for employees to attend work on a strike day when they have been identified in a work notice, the effectiveness of this legislation is, I am afraid, severely undermined—and I suspect that is the purpose of the amendments.
I cannot therefore accept a continuation of the risk to lives and livelihoods as a result of the disproportionate impact of these strikes. I therefore ask that the House supports Motions C and D to address this, and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, will not move their respective Motions C1 and D1. I beg to move.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway
At end insert “and do propose Amendment 4B in lieu—
“234CA Protection of employees
(1) A person is not subject to a work notice if they have not received a copy of it in accordance with the time limits specified in section 234C(3). (2) It is for the employer to prove that the work notice was received in conformity with subsection (1).(3) An employee may not be dismissed or subjected to any detriment for failing to comply with a work notice and any such dismissal shall be treated as a dismissal to which section 152 applies and any such detriment shall be treated as a detriment to which section 146 applies.(4) A work notice does not place a contractual obligation on an employee to comply with it.””
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, this Motion seeks to uphold a principle long established in British law: that workers on strike are protected against the sack. Noble Lords will recall the concerns of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, at Second Reading. He said that
“this is a troublesome piece of legislation. It asks us all a very simple question: when does the right to withhold your labour … cease to be a right? It answers that question too … the right ceases when, following a ministerial decree, your employer can oblige you to work, and if you fail to do so you can lose your job”.—[Official Report, 21/2/23; col. 1568.]
Not since the Second World War have a UK Government taken power to facilitate the requisitioning of people to work against their will. This would make the UK an outlier in Europe and flies in the face of human rights, equality and ILO conventions as reaffirmed by the Government in the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement. The Government have succeeded in uniting employers, unions, the devolved nations and service users against them. In the interests of transparency, I repeat that Labour is 100% committed to repealing this bad Bill.
My Motion returns to the core concern: that striking workers selected by the employer they are striking against can be forced to work or face the sack. Remember, this legislation would unilaterally change the employment contracts of potentially millions of people—and all through secondary legislation with no proper parliamentary scrutiny or accountability. Minimum service levels determined by a Secretary of State could be set up to 100% and require staffing levels to match. The union may have jumped every hurdle to secure a lawful ballot and the worker may have democratically voted to strike, but protection against the sack will be whipped away by an employer simply putting their name on a piece of paper. The worker may not even have received the work notice; there is no obligation on the employer to make sure that they do. Their automatic protection against dismissal will be annulled. This is manifestly unjust.
Remember, too, that minimum service levels apply only to strike days. For the rest of the year, a Secretary of State can close fire stations, see rail services fail, see asylum seeker backlogs grow, increase class sizes and let NHS waiting lists—shamefully now at 7.3 million—soar. I have listened carefully to the debates in both Houses. Ministers are trying to sweep the issue of sackings under the carpet.
On 10 January, the then Business Secretary Grant Shapps said it was wrong to frighten people about their jobs. The Minister has said on many occasions, including on 21 February:
“This legislation is not about sacking workers”.—[Official Report, 21/2/23; col. 1563.]
On 22 May, the Under-Secretary of State told the House of Commons that
“nobody will be sacked as a result of the legislation”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/5/23; col. 103.]
The official reason from the Commons for rejecting my original amendment is that
“for the legislation to be effective, it is necessary for there to be consequences for an employee who fails to comply with the work notice”.
So the consequence of exercising the human right to withdraw your labour is the removal of protection against unfair dismissal. In a free society, that is chilling. The very workers Ministers thanked for their heroism during the pandemic and stood on doorsteps to clap can be punished for striking with instant dismissal.
Key workers have already sacrificed so much for the rest of us. Unless the Government accept this amendment, Ministers now expect them to sacrifice their right to strike, or pay the price with their livelihoods. I sincerely hope that my amendment will be supported in this House and that it will give the opportunity for the Government to listen and think again. I beg to move.
Lord Balfe (Con)
Noble Lords will not be surprised that I agree with the amendment as tabled. I have been a student of history for many years. You do not requisition labour except in times of dire national emergency. We did not even requisition it at the outbreak of the Second World War. Conscription did not come in until half way through the First World War. To deprive a person of the liberty to decide whether they go to work is something that is done carefully and very seldom. I think this goes far too far. It is an imposition not only on the workforce but on the trade union movement.
We spend a lot of time saying how much we want to build a prosperous Britain, but I remind noble Lords that 60%-plus of trade unionists have a higher education degree or more. We are not dealing with the trade union movement of the 1920s. We are now dealing with a trade union movement on which Britain depends for its prosperity. The people who look after the skies, fly the planes, run the National Air Traffic Service, keep our nuclear power plants going and manage our railways are highly skilled people who are in trade unions because they see a trade union as being a way of defending their interests.
Sadly for the party opposite, some one-third of them do not see that party as being the one that will deliver their political future. But that is a good thing, because I do not believe that we want sectarian trade unions. I want people to join trade unions because they want to better the welfare of their country. Taking steps such as this will just alienate people. They are not the sort of steps where people are going to be happy and say, “Oh it’s a really good thing”.
As for minimum service levels, I live in Cambridge. We seem to have had lots of strikes this year, but there has never been one that prevented me getting here, because many of the unions have a harder job keeping their people out on strike than getting the original ballot to put them on strike because, when push comes to shove, a lot of them do not wish to lose the money that they lose. So I think we need to be realistic about this.
All we are doing here is heating up the atmosphere and making it harder for the reasonable people in trade unions to make this country work. Every trade union has within it a group of people who hate strikes; they regard them as being the last thing they want, because it is a sign of failure. So I say to the Government as a whole—because it is not just this Bill—for goodness’ sake, make peace with organised labour; it is fundamentally on your side. It is much more on your side than some of the people who are contributing to the political parties of this nation and doing so for reasons which I would not say are particularly honourable. So please, Minister, send this back to the Commons and look for a compromise. I certainly will not vote for it to go again because I believe that the Commons must, in the end, have its primacy; that is why we have it. But it is quite legitimate to send this back and I ask that, when it gets there, our Ministers on our Front Bench say, “Look, there are very genuine reasons for this. Please try and give us some concessions”.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will say very briefly I have no doubt that the Government do not want to lead to the sacking of workers through this Bill. However, when the Minister seeks to reassure us with the conclusion that it will be left to the discretion of the employer, I say to the Minister that those are dread words for anyone who is an employee of said employer if you are in dispute. As this Bill is about enforcing consequences, nay punishment, I do not care whether the Minister intends that people are sacked, I simply point out that that could be the consequence even against what the Government want. I hope the Government will reconsider this and bear in mind that it is to do with freedom, rather than coercing people: the freedom to go on strike and withdraw your labour, which is something that all sides of this House should support.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment D1 and address some of the issues the Minister mentioned. Of course, when I spoke in the earlier debate, I focused on the fact that, when it comes to minimum service levels during disputes, what works are voluntary agreements—and that is across the world. I repeat that what this Bill does is undermine co-operation and voluntary agreements.
The fact is that this Bill will place trade unions in the unacceptable position of being asked to ensure that members who vote for industrial action do not take part in that action. It is a complete contradiction of their role. My amendment would remove the obligation on the union to take undefined reasonable steps. The Minister referred to the report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and I appreciate the Minister attempting to meet me and my noble friend to discuss what “reasonable steps” might mean. Sadly, the two-page government amendment that he gave me placed huge burdens on employers and unions—the complete opposite of what this Government say they want to achieve.
The simple fact, as I mentioned on Report, is that if a union is deemed not to have followed the legislation, it could mean that the strike is regarded as unlawful and that protections such as automatic unfair dismissal protection could be removed from all striking workers, including those not named in the notices. Again, if a union is deemed not to have followed the legislation, the strike could be regarded as unlawful, and that then opens up all kinds of consequences.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, Motions C1 and D1, as so excellently set out by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, seek to add protections into the Bill for workers and unions. The Bill as drafted, as we have heard, could have serious consequences for employees and unions that fail to comply with work notices imposing minimum service levels.
To pick up the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made very well, it does not matter what Secretaries of State or Ministers have said once this law is out there. We move from the situation we have at the moment, under existing industrial action legislation, where those on an official lawful strike are automatically deemed to be unfairly dismissed if they are sacked for taking part. The Bill would disapply this protection for those named by an employer on a work notice. This is a gross infringement of individuals’ freedom and that is why these Benches support Motions C1 and D1.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, we have once again had a reasonably full debate on these matters, so the House will be relieved that I will keep my response brief. We have largely covered many of these points before, so we do not need to repeat them.
Briefly, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, I restate the view of the Government that this Bill is not about sacking workers, and nor is it about forced labour, which is a frankly ridiculous exaggeration. It simply equips employers to manage instances of non-compliance with a work notice. That is exactly the same situation as any other strike action that is not protected under existing legislation.
To be clear, under the original drafting of the Bill an employee who went on strike contrary to being named on a work notice would lose their automatic protection from unfair dismissal only provided that they were notified in advance of the requirement for them to work and that they must comply with the work notice. We expect employees to be told if they are required to work and, in that case, what work they are required to do. In such circumstances, it is reasonable for an employer to consider, if it wishes, disciplinary action if an individual none the less chooses to continue to strike, thereby putting the public at risk. It is at the discretion of the employer as to what, if any, disciplinary action is taken in these circumstances. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, the Government expect employers to be fair and reasonable and to take this action only where it is necessary.
Unions must have a role to play in minimum service levels, otherwise they would be able to induce people to strike as normal and take steps to undermine minimum service levels being achieved. That directly counters the objectives of this policy. The consequences of a union failing to play that role are consistent with any other failures by a union to comply with any other existing law.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, as I said in my opening speech the Government are willing to consider whether there is a case to provide further detail on what reasonable steps are, what this means for trade unions and how they might fulfil those obligations.
I stress to this House that Motions C1 and D1 would continue the prolonged and disproportionate impact of strike action on the public. With this legislation, the Government are taking a fair and proportionate approach to balance the fundamental ability of unions and their members to strike, on the one hand, with the need for the wider public to access some of the key services that they expect and pay for, on the other. I therefore hope that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, do not push their amendments. I commend the government Motions to the House.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Callanan
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 5, 6 and 7, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 5A, 6A and 7A.
Lord Collins of Highbury
At end insert “and do propose Amendment 5B as an amendment in lieu and Amendments 5C and 5D as consequential amendments—
Financial Services and Markets Bill
Thursday 8th June 2023
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 View all Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 124-II Second marshalled list for Report - (6 Jun 2023)
Baroness Penn
“(ic) how it has complied with the statement of policy on panel appointments prepared under section 1RA in relation to the process for making appointments and the matters considered in determining who is appointed, and”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the FCA includes in its annual report under paragraph 11 of Schedule 1ZA to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 a summary of how it has complied with the statement of policy on panel appointments in section 1RA as inserted into FSMA 2000 by Clause 43.
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Penn) (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to all the government amendments in this group, which are part of a package of changes that the Government have brought forward to support scrutiny and accountability of the financial services regulators.
This group of amendments focuses on supporting that work through independent analysis and scrutiny. The Government have listened to the view expressed by noble Lords that, for there to be effective scrutiny, it is critical that Parliament and others have access to accurate and impartial information to assist in assessing the performance of the regulators. The Government have carefully considered the proposal, put forward by my noble friend Lord Bridges in Grand Committee, to establish an office for financial regulatory accountability, or OFRA.
While the Government cannot accept the proposal to establish an OFRA, we have considered what more can be done to support the provision of independent analysis and scrutiny. FSMA already requires the regulators to consult on rule proposals and establish independent panels to act as a “critical friend” in the rule-making process. The regulators seek to engage the panels at an early stage of policy development and the panels voluntarily produce reports annually on their work.
Through the Bill, the Government are already enhancing the role of the statutory panels to support scrutiny and accountability. This includes Clause 43, which requires the regulators to publish a statement of policy on how they recruit members of their statutory panels. In addition, following the debate in Commons Committee the Government introduced Clause 44, which requires panel members to be external to the regulators and the Treasury.
However, the Government have heard the calls from across the House for further reassurance that the regulators’ approach to panel recruitment will ensure that panel members are drawn from a diverse range of stakeholders and are sufficiently independent of the regulators. The Government have therefore introduced Amendments 23, 24, and 57, which will require the FCA, the PRA and the PSR, as part of their annual reports, to set out how recruitment to their panels has been consistent with their statements of policy.
The Bill also already introduces measures to strengthen the quality of the regulators’ cost-benefit analysis, including the introduction of new, independent panels to support the production and development of CBA. It is important that CBA reflect as accurately as possible the costs and benefits to firms and consumers of implementing and following regulation. In assessing this, the experience of regulated firms themselves is vital.
The Government are grateful to my noble friend Lord Holmes for raising this issue in Grand Committee, and again through Amendments 44 and 47 today. The Government have reflected on that earlier debate and introduced Amendments 43 and 46, which will require both the FCA and the PRA to appoint at least two members to their CBA panels from authorised firms.
To ensure that Parliament has access to the important work of the panels, the Government have introduced Amendment 50, which provides a power for the Treasury to require the panels to produce annual reports. The Treasury will then be required to lay these reports before Parliament. I can confirm that, in the first instance, the Government will bring forward the necessary secondary legislation to require the CBA panels and the FCA Consumer Panel to publish an annual report to be laid before Parliament, reflecting the fact that the work of the Consumer Panel and the new CBA panels has been of keen interest to noble Lords in earlier debates. The Government will keep this under review, and the legislation will allow the Government to require other panels to publish annual reports and lay these before Parliament if they consider that appropriate in future.
Finally, Amendment 95 seeks to strengthen the independence of the complaints scheme through which anyone directly affected by how the regulators have arrived at their decisions can raise concerns. The scheme is overseen by the independent complaints commissioner, and Amendment 95 seeks to strengthen that independence further by making the Treasury responsible for the appointment of the commissioner, rather than the regulators.
Existing legislation requires the complaints commissioner to publish an annual report, including trends in complaints and recommendations for how the regulators can improve, which is to be laid before Parliament. Amendment 95 also enables the Treasury to direct the commissioner to include additional matters in the annual report. This will ensure that, where appropriate, the Government can make sure that the report covers issues which the Government consider are important to support scrutiny of. Amendment 95 also requires the regulators to include a summary of where they have disagreed with the commissioner’s recommendations, and their reasons for doing so, in their response to the commissioner’s annual report.
The Government have been clear that the regulators’ increased responsibilities as a result of the Bill must be balanced with clear accountability, appropriate democratic input and transparent oversight. The package of amendments we are debating in this group contribute to that and support Parliament through additional independent analysis and scrutiny.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate on this group of amendments. I will speak to Amendments 42, 44, 45 and 47 in my name, and offer my support for all the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Bridges, to which I have added my name. I will leave him to set them out.
I again thank my noble friend the Minister, and the Treasury officials and team, for all the meetings and work done during Committee, and between Committee and Report, on the question of regulator scrutiny and accountability. I thank her particularly for adopting my Amendments 44 and 47 on the membership of the panels. On my Amendments 42 and 45, could she say a little more about the evidence base the panel will use to come to its recommendations? Would it be valuable to publish any dissenting opinions on the matters to be published? This would be extremely helpful for Parliament to scrutinise the panel’s decisions.
Finally, I ask a broader question around cost-benefit analysis. How will HMT and the regulator seek to ensure that the whole CBA process is meaningful, balanced, considers all majority and minority views, and does not fall into the potential trap of being a utilitarianist pursuit, which cost-benefit analysis can sometimes fall foul of?
That said, I thank again the Minister and the Treasury officials for their support for the amendments and for the discussions we had to come to this point, particularly on Amendments 44 and 47. I look forward to hearing in detail, particularly from my noble friend Lord Bridges and the Minister, the suggestion around the office for regulator accountability.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I will briefly speak to Amendment 39, to which I have added my name, and government Amendment 50. I declare that I am on the board of the ABI. More relevantly, as the amendments are about the Consumer Panel, I speak as a former vice-chair of one of the statutory panels, the Financial Services Consumer Panel. It was some time ago and our focus then was on the FSA rather than the present FCA, but our role was essentially the same.
I was on the panel before the events of 2007 and 2008. As a panel, we were warning about the risk to consumers of interest-only mortgages, high loan to value mortgages—which were really unacceptable to us—and high mortgages relevant to income. It was just before the crash, but I am not pretending that we foresaw what would happen, even though we were worried about those things. We did not anticipate what was happening in the financial sector, starting with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Northern Rock. Our concern was about how consumers would fare should house prices tumble and their incomes not rise—or, indeed, if interest rates should increase. We saw them as a very vulnerable group of consumers.
What is interesting and relevant to Amendments 39 and 50 is that our role was only to advise the then FSA. Sadly, it did not pay enough attention to what we were saying. It might have given it a little bit more on its dashboard had it done so. Had our report been to Parliament and the Treasury perhaps someone might have noticed and taken an interest. That lives in the “What if?” category of history, but it explains my support of any report made by people who represent consumers being brought to public attention.
Amendment 39, to which I have added my name, was so brilliantly written and argued for in the Commons by my honourable friend Nick Smith. I should say that a long time ago we worked together when he was the Labour Party agent in Holborn and St Pancras and I was the CLP chair. Quite a bit seems to have happened since then to both of us. I knew at the time that he was able to take an issue with which he was dealing and see the broader context, which is how we come to the amendment he has essentially developed and which is in front of the House today.
My honourable friend’s interest was sparked when he was campaigning on behalf of members of the British Steel pension scheme—a scandal which led the NAO and the PAC to conclude that the FCA fell drastically short of its proper role in protecting consumers of financial services. His interest in that brings me to where we are today.
In my time, we have witnessed nearly £40 billion being paid in compensation to consumers who were mis-sold PPI, although the full costs were paid much later. Again, as consumer reps, we flagged up that this was not an appropriate product for most of those it was being sold to. Just occasionally, listening to consumers is good not just for them but for the industry and the whole economy. The voice of consumers is worth listening to.
The Government’s Amendment 50 is very welcome. It requires the statutory panels—I am particularly interested in the Consumer Panel—to report to the Treasury and for their reports to be laid before Parliament. This will bring consumer interest to the heart of our public discourse, which will be good for all concerned. I thank the Government for their amendment on this. I am happy that this trumps, or at least meets, Amendment 39.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, in general I support all the amendments in this group. I am particularly pleased to see government Amendment 50 on the panel reports, assuming that they are implemented, and government Amendment 63 and its companions in the next group to require the regulators to state how they have taken account of parliamentary committee reports in rulemaking. I thank the Minister and the Bill team for covering some of the amendments that I tabled in Committee and similar ones from other noble Lords.
In this group, I have added my name to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, which concern the setting up of an office for financial regulatory accountability, as I did in Committee. The noble Lord is unable to be here today and has asked me to give his apologies and to introduce his amendments.
There is no need to go through the debate that we had in Committee, except to say that since FSMA 2022 there has been a growth in voices calling for an independent oversight body, including the main industry bodies. Those bodies were somewhat disappointed by the Minister’s suggestion in Committee that there was no industry support or suggestion along those lines, because they have made their views clear. I have received emails assuring me that they put points in the consultation responses as well as in published industry papers, although I acknowledge that those were early days and they may not have got as far as formulating ideas in the same way that I had in my consultation response.
There has also been a growth in support in this House. As has been said, if we had campaigned during the Brexit referendum that there would be this massive amount of power going to government, which would then be pressed onwards to unelected regulators, maybe some people would have had different thoughts, but that is water under the bridge. Going back to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, the suite of amendments that cover the office for financial regulatory accountability—Amendments 64 to 72—includes some useful amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, with which the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, agrees.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I too thank my noble friend the Minister for again responding to the strong views expressed within your Lordships’ House and for introducing the amendments that she has. I also agree with what my noble friend Lord Holmes said.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, for the introduction of my noble friend Lord Bridges’ Amendment 64 and the others in that group. I supported his amendments in Grand Committee and am pleased to do so again today. My noble friend set out with his usual clarity, as did the noble Baroness, why we should support these amendments, and I will not waste your Lordships’ time in repeating them.
As my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean said in Committee, in order for Parliament to be able to hold the Treasury and the regulators to account, it is necessary to have an independent source of information. The proposed office would provide that. It is also welcome that the main duties of the office will include a duty to prioritise the analysis of regulations that restrict competition, negatively affect competitiveness and add compliance costs.
I do not believe that the new office would be a regulator of the regulators. Rather, it would be a means to ensure that the regulators really do get on with the job on which they are behind schedule—the promise made in 2016, in the general election manifesto and many times since that we will take advantage of our regulatory freedoms to eliminate or simplify those regulations which do not suit our markets and which place a disproportionate burden on market participants. We should not do this at the expense of standards, but to recast the rulebook in common law style will make it much easier for firms to maintain the high standards on which the regulators, the Treasury and noble Lords will all insist. The proposed office would greatly assist in ensuring that this will happen.
I also note—although we will discuss this in the next group—that, ideally, the office would deal principally with a Joint Committee of both Houses rather than two separate committees which might compete with each other. That would double the work and the costs that the office and the regulators would have to bear in carrying out their duties.
I believe the creation of an independent office such as the one proposed would be more helpful than the creation of a multiplicity of panels, which may be set up by statute but remain panels of the entities of which they form part. These are also duplicated between the two regulators, which doubles the cost and time taken by the regulators, and by the relevant committees of your Lordships’ House, in discussing with them.
I hope my noble friend the Minister is prepared to consider further the creation of something which is truly independent of the regulators. I think we have too much legislation by statute to require entities to negotiate with panels of which they are a part, which conceptually I find rather odd in any case.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, this is the first of two groups that seek to improve the level of parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. Arguably, I think the groups are the wrong way around from a logical point of view, but we are where we are. We had long debates on this in Committee, and it was clear that accountability and parliamentary scrutiny was probably the single biggest issue on which Members from across the House felt that the Bill fell woefully short, particularly given the huge amount that is being transferred to the responsibility of the regulators by the Bill.
We heard in Committee of the need for three legs to the whole process of scrutiny and accountability: reporting, independent analysis and the parliamentary accountability elements. This group is about the second leg—the independent analysis that will support the parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. The Government have listened, and that is welcome, but I am sure I am not alone in finding what they have proposed to be rather thin gruel.
The Government have introduced a number of amendments which enhance the role of the various policy panels, in particular the cost-benefit analysis panel. These are welcome, but I am afraid they really do not go far enough. Other noble Lords, especially the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, have tabled further amendments to enhance and support the role of the panels. Again, that is very welcome but not, I think, sufficient. Despite these improvements, the panels remain appointed by the regulators and are not genuinely independent.
I remain strongly drawn to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges of Headley, introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, to which I have added my name, to create a genuinely independent office for financial regulatory accountability. As I said, so much responsibility is being handed to the regulators that it must make sense to have a genuinely robust system of oversight over the regulators, not just responding to consultations about proposed changes to regulations that the Government have put into the Bill but a much more holistic oversight of the whole regulatory direction—something that deals with what the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, referred to as the multiplicity of panels. We need to draw this all together, and we need to be much more forward-looking about the direction of regulation, rather than backward-looking as to what is proposed.
This is such an important matter and such a huge volume of work that, if we are to scrutinise it effectively, we need to have something such as the proposed office for financial accountability to enable parliamentary committees and others to carry out the meaningful scrutiny. The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, talked about the need for resources; we will come on to that in the next group, but she is quite right. This would really help because, if the independent information were available to the committees, it would save them the job of doing all the sifting and all the rest of it, and they would be able to concentrate on the bits that really matter.
Even with the amendments proposed by the Government, I do not think that we get anywhere near that real scrutiny. I am sorry to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, does not intend to push these amendments; I would have liked him to do so and would have supported him if he had. I hope that he will continue to use his influence as the chair of the Economic Affairs Committee to push for a similar approach.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, I totally agree with what the noble Lord has just said and therefore I will not repeat his words. The office for financial regulatory accountability proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, would become an important part of the whole regulatory architecture in this country. The reason why I have proposed a couple of amendments—I am delighted to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, actually likes my amendments to his amendments—is to enhance the position of the office within that architecture.
We have to recognise that there will be virulent opposition to this in the Treasury. The Treasury’s darkest day in recent years was the day that the Office for Budget Responsibility was established as an independent entity evaluating the performance of the economy. In the same way, having gone through that dark day, I can imagine the horror with which the Treasury observes the possibility of an independent entity evaluating the performance of regulators and the performance of the Treasury in its activity in guiding regulation. It is no surprise at all that we have what the noble Lord has quite appropriately called “thin gruel”, instead of something that would be truly effective and would create both an independent assessor and a sounding board for the industry, consumers and others who have an interest to express in regulation to get their views on to the front line.
With my Amendments 67 and 72 I am again in slight opposition to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, in the sense that I want to remove the lines in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, that specifically focus on the competition objective, because I do not want to second-guess what the office might do. The office could choose to travel over any part of the regulatory countryside. I regard my Amendment 72 as much more important because, as part of the architecture, the office should be funded through the levy in the same way as other parts of the regulatory system; the FCA, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme and so on are all financed via the standard levy on the industry. After all, this would be a trivial amount of money because—as has been pointed out—it would be only a relatively small entity. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, liked my amendment to his amendment. I hope that he will be able to carry forward these proposals in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, suggested.
I will comment on Amendments 44 and 47 from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, on the membership of panels at the FCA and the PRA. I support his view that placing practitioners on panels can have a very positive effect. I say this because I was an independent member of the board of the old Securities and Futures Authority, which was a practitioner-run regulatory authority with independent members, of which I was one. I was very impressed by the way that practitioners, when required to be regulators and placed in a regulatory role, assumed the role of regulators—they were not just representatives of their special interests. In fact, their special interests were left at the door; what came in with them was their specialist knowledge. I was sceptical when I first joined the board of the SFA but was won over by the performance of practitioners there. The proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for practitioners will add to the regulatory effectiveness and knowledge of these panels.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I agree with everything that has been said by everyone in the debate so far and support all these amendments. I know that my noble friend Lord Bridges is mortified that he cannot be here today. We discussed the arguments and I supported them in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, is absolutely right about how this would have gone down in the Treasury. But I do not want to be grudging, given the amount of movement that the Minister has been able to achieve as a result of the debate, and the government amendments in this group will make a difference. We are dealing with the old “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” problem here. This group of amendments would have taken it a lot further forward, although the government amendments are helpful.
I do not want to anticipate the next debate, but the key question will be, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out, the resource that is made available. If it is not to be through a body such as the OBR, as my noble friend Lord Bridges was suggesting, it will have to be provided by the parliamentary authorities. Whether that will work, and how effective it will be, will depend on the extent to which the Government give a clear indication that they would welcome it, although it would be a matter for the House. I suspect that would be helpful.
I thank the Minister for having listened to the debate in Committee, which we are in danger of repeating, and having taken some measures, if not going perhaps as far as my noble friend Lord Bridges’s Amendment 64 would require. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for so ably making the case for it.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly. It will be evident to the House by now that, as was true in Committee, essentially every speaker takes one position, other than the Government. Maybe one or two support the Government’s position, but overwhelmingly there has been a common feeling across political ideologies and views. People from different perspectives, including those who are independent in this House, all share the same set of concerns.
We all particularly welcomed the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, because it was a piece of completely new thinking—a way to break the conundrum very effectively by making sure that an office of financial regulatory accountability would change the game by providing Parliament and anyone else responsible for scrutiny and accountability with the analysis, information and data they need to do that effectively. I very much hope that the Government will take it away and consider it.
I join all other noble Lords in finding not only the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, but those from the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and the others in this group extremely constructive. I vary slightly from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth; I understand that the Government have moved a little in the amendments they have brought forward in this group but, my goodness, it is a baby step. This issue is far too big to be dealt with only by baby steps.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I start by acknowledging the government amendments in this group, which make a number of changes that we think are sensible to ensure that the cost/benefit analysis panels have representatives from industry, to allow the Treasury to direct statutory panels to make annual reports and to make it the Treasury’s job to appoint the complaints commissioner. These all represent steps in the right direction—even if, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has just said, they are not necessarily the giant leaps that some would hope to see.
We tabled Amendment 39 in this group, which would require the FCA consumer panel to produce annual reports on the regulator’s fulfilment of its statutory consumer protection duties, and my noble friend Lady Hayter explained why we were backing this so firmly and spoke about the work with the British Steel pensioners, led by Nick Smith. She saved my blushes because Nick is my husband. I know that is not a declarable interest, but in the interests of transparency, I should probably let people know. We are pleased to see Amendment 50 and will not be pressing our Amendment 39 to a vote because of it. We believe that the government amendments go a significant way to addressing our concerns, so will not press our amendment, but that does not mean that we are convinced that consumer issues are by any means resolved, and we may have to revisit this topic in future.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, helpfully introduced the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and presented his proposal for an independent office for financial regulatory accountability. This is an interesting proposal but, when considering the Government’s numerous concessions on scrutiny and accountability, at this point we would not be minded to support it at a Division, because the creation of such a body needs significant work and amounts to a fundamental change in how we regulate the sector. We do not want to pre-empt what the Minister has to say, but it was not a core focus of the future regulatory framework review, the outcomes of which the Bill seeks to implement.
The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, raise important questions about the capacity of parliamentary committees to scrutinise the regulators’ output, and this is something we have consistently raised with the Minister during our private discussions. When I say “we”, that is very much the royal “we”—I obviously mean my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe. I am sure that he is grateful to the Minister for the time she has given to him, to my noble friend Lord Livermore and to me in recent weeks. While we understand that it is for Parliament to make its own arrangements, both now and in future, we hope that the Government will acknowledge the substantial workload that committees will have and remain open-minded about whether and how the regulators can better facilitate Parliament’s work.
I am especially grateful to my noble friend Lord Eatwell for his amendments to the OFRA texts, but I suppose this highlights in part the difficulties with supporting the detail of the proposal at a Division at this point. We see that many people agree with the principle, but there is probably a great deal more work to be done on the detail.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, let me respond briefly to the points raised in the debate. I take first the amendments from my noble friend Lord Bridges, well introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles: Amendments 64 to 66 and 68 to 71, which would establish an office for financial regulatory accountability. As I said in my opening remarks, the Government agree that the provision of accurate and impartial information is extremely important for assisting Parliament in its important scrutiny role—and, indeed, others.
However, as the noble Baroness opposite acknowledged, creating a new body raises questions about how it would interact with the existing accountability structures and the balance of responsibilities between government, Parliament and independent regulators. As I noted in Grand Committee, the provisions for the establishment of the Office for Budget Responsibility referred to in this debate, on which OFRA is, at least in part, modelled, were brought forward in a stand-alone Bill after public consultation, where there was sufficient time to consider carefully its role and remit in advance. The Government therefore do not think that establishing such a body through amendment to this Bill is the right way forward at this time. We acknowledge the strength of feeling and degree of consensus from different parts of the House on this idea, and noble Lords can rest assured that my noble friend Lord Bridges has made it very clear to me that this is not the last that the Government will be hearing from him on this subject.
I turn to the series of amendments from my noble friend Lord Holmes. Amendments 42 and 45 seek to make specific provision for the regulators’ new CBA panels to be provided with the information required to perform their functions. The Government support the intention of these amendments but consider that the requirement in legislation to establish and maintain the panel already requires the regulator to ensure that the panel has the appropriate information and data to perform its functions.
My noble friend Lord Holmes asked how we could ensure high-quality cost-benefit analysis work. As he and the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, noted, key to this is the composition of the panels. Panels with members who have diverse backgrounds, expertise and thought will be better placed to ensure that the FCA, the PRA and the PSR receive the most comprehensive appraisal of their policy. That is part of the reason why we have Clause 43, which requires the FCA and the PRA to set out a clear and transparent process for appointing members.
The FCA has also recognised the importance of improving diversity in the membership of its statutory panels and is undertaking a review to identify ways in which it can boost diversity so that the composition of panels appropriately reflects the range of practitioners and stakeholders in financial services. The Government welcome the work that is being done to move recruitment to the panels in this direction.
Amendments 41 and 45 seek to require the new CBA panels to make public their meeting materials and recommendations. The Government are not able to support this as it could undermine the confidentiality of the panels’ contributions, which is crucial to their role as a critical friend to the regulators. The panels and the regulator will already be able to make public their deliberations and materials when they consider it appropriate, without undermining that confidentiality. Through an amendment in this group, the Government are taking a power to oblige the panels to publish their annual reports on their work and lay them before Parliament; we think that this will deliver sufficiently.
If a panel feels that its work or conclusions are being ignored by the regulator, or where there are issues on which the regulator and the panel differ, the Government expect that these will generally be resolved in the course of regular engagement between the regulator and the panel. However, as I have said, panels are able to express their views publicly, including through their annual reports or by publishing responses to consultations. For example, as it currently operates, the FCA’s consumer panel regularly publishes its responses to the regulator’s consultations.
I turn to Amendment 39 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman. I am glad that she and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, feel that government Amendment 50 seeks the same outcome and should help to deliver that, although I note that, as the noble Baroness said, this is not the last word on consumer issues. However, at least when it comes to this particular focus, we have, I hope, delivered on that.
I know that not all noble Lords are satisfied with all of what the Government have put forward, but this is a step forward in the right direction. I expect to hear more from noble Lords in future on how the new system that we are establishing through this Bill is operating. For now, I commend the amendment.
Baroness Penn
“(za) after paragraph (ba) insert—“(bb) how it has complied with the statement of policy on panel appointments prepared under section 2NA in relation to the process for making appointments and the matters considered in determining who is appointed,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the PRA includes in its annual report under paragraph 19 of Schedule 1ZB to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 a summary of how it has complied with the statement of policy on panel appointments in section 2NA as inserted into FSMA 2000 by Clause 43.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I fear that the Minister has stolen my clothes. In speaking to Amendments 25, 29, 31, 36 and 38, which are in my name, and in looking at the government amendments, including Amendment 30, I find myself saying that the government amendments are far more effective and do a better job. They achieve the same purpose, so I say a big thank you to the Minister for having taken this on board. But, just reflecting on the debate we have had, I say that this will work only if very substantial resources are made available to any committee, whether that is a committee of this House or a Joint Committee.
I entirely understand the autonomy of this House, and the Government are to be commended in respecting it. It is up to this House and the other place to decide what committees they will establish, but here we have a statutory opportunity for us to set up a Joint Committee of both Houses, which my noble friend Lord Trenchard has made strong representations for, or indeed another committee of this House. But be in no doubt that any committee, whether joint or single, is going to have to look at the entire financial regulatory structure that has been taken from the European Union and given to the regulators. That is an enormous task. Although in this House we have many able people with expertise in this area, they have a finite amount of time and will absolutely need to be supported by people with technical expertise and knowledge, of the kind which the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, would have been quite used to when she was in the European Parliament, so ably chairing a committee with similar responsibilities.
I very much support the government amendments and certainly do not feel the need to press any of mine to the vote in this House. I thank the Minister for having listened so carefully, and for the time that she and her officials have given to considering the arguments and points, which have been made pretty well with a degree of consensus across the Committee and the House. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
I must advise the House—this will not surprise the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—that, if this amendment is agreed to, I will be unable to call Amendment 26.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, I will comment briefly on the proposal which has emerged and is contained in Amendment 30 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Penn. It refers to the possibility of parliamentary committees being
“the Treasury Committee of the House of Commons … the Committee of the House of Lords”
or a Joint Committee. It says “and” but I presume that they would be mutually exclusive.
What is extraordinary about this amendment is that it contains a seriously bad idea which might lead to an extremely good outcome. The seriously bad idea is that the two committees, one in the other place and one here in the Lords, would be sitting at the same time and looking at the same material, requiring the same levels of expertise to advise them and the same commitment of time by the regulators—and, perhaps, producing divergent opinions which would lead to regulatory uncertainty. That is a very bad outcome. Why I fully support these amendments, however, is that the seriously bad idea will lead to an extremely good outcome, because people will see that the possibility of having a committee in the other place and a committee here doing the same thing, with all the negative connotations that I have just discussed, will lead to the rational outcome of a Joint Committee of both Houses.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I added my name to the amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, so I thought I would stand and associate myself completely with his comments. I am delighted that the noble Baroness has effectively accepted the proposal. I will add my voice to say this: the subject of financial services is so huge, complex and important that it really requires a dedicated committee, whether a Joint Committee or committee of this House, not just to be part of, say, the Industry and Regulators Committee or the Economic Affairs Committee. It is much too big a subject to be covered by a committee that is not dedicated to the subject—and, if you have a dedicated committee, it must be properly resourced.
The Government rightly say that this is a matter for Parliament, but let us be realistic: they have huge influence on what happens there. I really hope that the Government and whoever the powers-that-be in this House who make these decisions are—even as the chair of the Finance Committee, this is still slightly opaque to me—are listening. This is so important. We must go ahead and must resource it properly.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I strongly agree with what my noble friend Lord Forsyth has said. I also put my name to his Amendment 25 and other amendments, and I think that he is entirely right.
I also thank the Minister for responding to the concerns expressed on all sides of the House and for recognising that the parliamentary oversight of the regulators may need to be done by a Joint Committee of both Houses. Like the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, I had also noticed that the amendment says not “or” but “and”, so there is a danger that there might be three committees doing the same thing, which would treble the work required by the regulator and, presumably, by the witnesses and experts who would be called to assist.
Also like the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, I had the experience of serving on the 1999 Joint Committee of both Houses. This was established by resolution of your Lordships’ House and another place separately but was effectively driven, or at least strongly encouraged, by the Government at the time. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, was a most effective chairman of the Joint Committee, and it was a pleasure to serve on it under his leadership. An added benefit of that Joint Committee was that it enabled noble Lords with an interest in financial services to work much more closely with Members of the other place and concentrated the expertise of both Houses in one committee. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, that it would be a seriously bad outcome were there to be two committees tasked with this huge job.
I also refer to what the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, said. I was in Brussels at the same time that she was chairman of the ECON, the economic affairs committee of the European Parliament. I often visited the European Parliament at that time. I was struck by the large number of staff and the great facilities available to the committees to carry out their role of scrutinising the legislative proposals brought by the Commission. We have not experienced that burdensome type of work: in the past, under the European model, all our financial services regulation was in primary legislation. It will now be given to the regulators. We therefore need more resources than have been available to us to scrutinise and supervise them properly. This is really important.
Noble Lords should also be grateful to the Minister for restoring equality of involvement between another place and your Lordships’ House. I thought that this was an unfortunate precedent for this type of legislation, particularly as many noble Lords have recent and continuing involvement with financial services firms. I look forward to the Minister’s winding up.
Lord Carrington of Fulham (Con)
My Lords, I will add my two cents’ worth to encourage the establishment of a Joint Committee. I cannot believe that having a committee in each House of this Parliament would work effectively, for all the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, has suggested. The committees of this House and the other place are grossly underresourced in any case. We need a committee looking at something as detailed and complex as this which operates in the way that the Public Accounts Committee in the other place is set up, is dedicated to look at regulation and has the resourcing to double-guess not only the regulators but the advisers who advise them, so that it can stand up and come to its own opinion. In the small time that the members of those committees are able to dedicate to the committee, with all the other duties they have as parliamentarians, it should be able to analyse the evidence and come up with sensible, and inevitably highly technical, solutions.
I have some experience of the committees of both Houses. I chaired the Treasury Select Committee, donkey’s years ago, and I served on the Economic Affairs Committee here for some time. Neither of those committees has the resources to be able to undertake this kind of task. It needs a completely new structure. Possibly the only model we can look at is the PAC, which has the National Audit Office advising it very closely. I am not suggesting we should set up a national audit office for regulation, although I know my noble friend Lord Bridges has suggested such a thing. We need to make sure that whatever is set up is properly resourced. I recognise that it is a matter for both Houses to decide how they do that, but we have to be absolutely clear that both Houses can do that only if the financial resources are made available by His Majesty’s Treasury and the Government to enable them to do so. It will be a decision to be taken by His Majesty’s Government and my noble friend the Minister to ensure that the resourcing is available.
It is a necessary step. However, it is a step and almost certainly not the conclusion. Once we have experience of regulating the regulators, we will be able to judge what other changes are needed to make sure that the regulation is effective and that financial markets in London are regulated in a way that is effective and convincing for participants in those markets on a global basis.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on being so persuasive. The Government have listened carefully to his advice and have come forward with amendments that are identical in their outcome, even if perhaps they have found a more effective or legally acceptable way to set out the wording. I am sure that that is a step forward, but I want to join the chorus.
I had the privilege of being on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, which in effect was a Joint Committee of both Houses. It was very much driven by the Government, who set it up in the first place, and it was properly resourced. From the work we did over the two years, there are two lessons to be drawn. One is that, with that resource, you can genuinely produce the evidence and go into the detailed questioning that is necessary to expose what may not have been obvious from a superficial or limited inspection; in-depth was possible because of the resource that was made available. The second lesson is that as a Joint Committee—I am very attracted to Joint Committees, as they avoid the duplication that others have talked of—that commission received a degree of respect and significance that is probably not available to a committee that is the creature of one House but not the other. The joining together of the forces of both Houses was meaningful.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on persuading the Government to adopt his amendments, albeit in a slightly different form. Given the amount of regulation coming forward in the months and years ahead, and with the expertise that your Lordships’ House can offer, it was crucial that the Government extended the Commons-only provisions to include a relevant Lords committee, and we very much welcome these government amendments.
We are also pleased that the Minister included the option of a Joint Committee, as this future-proofs the legislation in the event that colleagues in both Houses feel—as does my noble friend Lord Eatwell—that such a body would provide a better form of scrutiny of the regulator’s work. As my noble friend Lady Chapman mentioned in a previous group, and as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, stressed further, there are still significant outstanding questions about the level of staff resource and expertise that relevant parliamentary committees will be able to draw on. Although these questions cannot be adequately addressed through the Bill, these concessions will at least safeguard the role of your Lordships’ House and enable conversations on resourcing to now proceed.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group focus on further formalising the role of parliamentary scrutiny of the regulators. The Government agree with noble Lords that effective parliamentary scrutiny, in particular through parliamentary committees, has a critical role to play in improving the quality of regulation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said, and the performance of the regulators overall.
The Bill, through Clauses 36 and 47 and Schedule 7, seeks to ensure that the Treasury Select Committee has the information it needs to fulfil its role, by requiring the regulator to notify the TSC when publishing any relevant consultations. However, the Government have listened to the case made by noble Lords that the important role of this House was not adequately reflected by that approach. We have therefore tabled a series of amendments which will require the regulators to also notify the relevant Lords committee when they publish a consultation. These amendments will ensure parity between arrangements for the Commons and the Lords. They also provide that, if a Joint Committee is set up in future, the regulators will be required to notify it in the same way.
I am glad that my noble friend Lord Forsyth feels that these amendments fulfil the aims of his own; that is just as well, as his amendments in Committee and on Report formed the basis for the Government’s approach—that is no coincidence. I am grateful to him for the work that he has put in on this issue and for the time that he has taken to discuss these matters with the Government.
I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Bridges and the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, for their engagement as the chairs of the current committees in this House that look at the work of the financial services regulators. When I spoke with them, they explained how the EAC and the IRC currently split some responsibility for financial services policy, an example of which was their recent work on LDI, where the EAC focused on the work of the Bank of England and the PRA and the IRC focused on that of the FCA. The Government’s amendments would allow for the two committees to continue with that approach if they wished to do so and for a different Lords committee to receive notifications of consultations from the FCA and the PRA. That structure would be for Parliament to decide.
I shall now pick up on the concern from noble Lords about having multiple committees looking at the same issues or the work of the same regulators. As I have said, the structure is a matter for Parliament, but currently we have the TSC in the Commons, and the Economic Affairs and the Industry and Regulators Committees in the Lords, which at the moment look at various aspects of the regulators’ work without duplicating each other or creating unnecessary burdens. Given the scale of powers for the regulators being established in this Bill, there will be more than sufficient work to go round different committees, and they have already proven themselves able to co-ordinate their work so that it is not duplicative.
We have heard, given the scale of the task before us, that there is concern about the resource made available to those committees. Committee structures and their resourcing will remain a matter for Parliament to decide and I have noted that noble Lords agree that that is the right approach. However, the Government recognise that the new model for financial services regulation will require a step change in this House’s scrutiny of the regulators and agree there must be suitable resource in place to support this. The Government will work with the usual channels and the House authorities in the appropriate way.
The Government have also heard concerns about the feedback loop when Parliament engages with regulatory proposals. There can often be a significant period of time between an initial consultation and the Bill’s existing provisions regarding the regulators’ engagement with parliamentary committees, and final rules being published. In particular, the Government recognise amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, in Grand Committee, seeking to require the regulators to explain how parliamentary recommendations have been considered. The Government have therefore tabled Amendments 61 to 63, which require the regulators, when publishing their final rules, to explain how they have considered representations from parliamentary committees. This will ensure that the regulators provide a public explanation of how the views of parliamentary committees have been considered at the point when rules are made. This complements the existing requirement in Clauses 36 and 47, and Schedule 7, for the regulators to respond in writing to the chairs of committees that have made representations. This will ensure not only that regulators appropriately consider Parliament’s representations but that they set out publicly how they have done so.
The debates so far have shown that there is no single silver bullet to solve the problem of accountability. However, the Government are committed to creating an effective, overarching ecosystem in which the various different actors all play their roles in holding the independent regulators to account, ensuring high-quality financial services regulation in the UK. I am therefore grateful that my noble friend Lord Forsyth has said that he will withdraw his amendments, and I intend to move the Government’s amendments, based on those amendments, when they are reached.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister for the way in which she has responded to this. I entirely agree with her point, as a former chairman of the Economic Affairs Committee, on the way in which we have worked with the Treasury Select Committee. I agree also with the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, that it is carefully drafted and—who knows?—it may very well lead to both Houses deciding to have a Joint Committee, which would certainly be the best possible option. But that is obviously not a matter for me and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Penn
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with the amendment at page 50, line 43, would extend the duties of the FCA to notify the Treasury Committee of the House of Commons so as to include a relevant Committee of the House of Lords and a Joint Committee.
“(4A) The reference in sub-paragraph (4)(a) to the FCA’s operational objectives includes, in its application as a secondary objective, the competitiveness and growth objective (see section 1EB).” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the references to the FCA’s operational objectives in new paragraph 28 of Schedule 1ZA to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, as inserted by Clause 36 of the Bill, includes a reference to the competitiveness and growth objective, as inserted by Clause 24 of the Bill.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment at page 50, line 30.
Baroness Penn
“(5A) References in this paragraph to the relevant Parliamentary Committees are references to—(a) the Treasury Committee of the House of Commons,(b) the Committee of the House of Lords which—(i) is charged with responsibility by that House for the purposes of this paragraph, and(ii) has notified the FCA that it is a relevant Parliamentary Committee for those purposes, and(c) the Joint Committee of both Houses which—(i) is charged with responsibility by those Houses for the purposes of this paragraph, and(ii) has notified the FCA that it is a relevant Parliamentary Committee for those purposes.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment at page 50, line 30.
Baroness Penn
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with the amendment at page 52, line 11, would extend the duties of the PRA to notify the Treasury Committee of the House of Commons so as to include a relevant Committee of the House of Lords and a Joint Committee.
“(4A) The reference in sub-paragraph (4)(a) to the PRA’s objectives includes, in their application as secondary objectives, the competition objective and the competitiveness and growth objective (see section 2H).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the references to the PRA’s objectives in new paragraph 36 of Schedule 1ZB to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, as inserted by Clause 36 of the Bill, includes a reference to the competition objective and the competitiveness and growth objective, as inserted by Clause 24 of the Bill.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment at page 51, line 42.
Baroness Penn
“(5A) References in this paragraph to the relevant Parliamentary Committees are references to—(a) the Treasury Committee of the House of Commons,(b) the Committee of the House of Lords which—(i) is charged with responsibility by that House for the purposes of this paragraph, and(ii) has notified the PRA that it is a relevant Parliamentary Committee for those purposes, and(c) the Joint Committee of both Houses which—(i) is charged with responsibility by those Houses for the purposes of this paragraph, and(ii) has notified the PRA that it is a relevant Parliamentary Committee for those purposes.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment at page 51, line 42.
Baroness Penn
“(7A) The FCA must appoint to the FCA Cost Benefit Analysis Panel at least two individuals who are employed by persons authorised for the purposes of this Act by the FCA, with each one being employed by a different person.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would impose a duty on the FCA to ensure that the FCA Cost Benefit Analysis Panel includes at least two members who are employed by persons authorised by the FCA under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.
Baroness Penn
“(7A) The PRA must appoint to the PRA Cost Benefit Analysis Panel at least two individuals who are employed by PRA-authorised persons, with each one being employed by a different person.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would impose a duty on the PRA to ensure that the PRA Cost Benefit Analysis Panel includes at least two members who are employed by PRA-authorised persons.
Baroness Penn
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the PRA Cost Benefit Analysis Panel (established under Clause 41) will be required to provide advice in relation to cost benefit analyses prepared for the purposes of consultation under the new paragraph 10A of Schedule 17A to FSMA 2000 (inserted by Clause 19).
Baroness Penn
“Panel reports
(1) The Treasury may by regulations require specified statutory panels of the regulator to produce an annual report on their work and provide that report to the Treasury.(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may make provision about the content of the annual report.(3) The Treasury must lay a copy of each report prepared by virtue of this section before Parliament.(4) Each specified statutory panel of the regulator must publish its reports prepared by virtue of this section in such manner as it thinks fit.(5) In this section—(a) “statutory panels of the regulator” means—(i) in relation to the FCA, the panels mentioned in section 1RA(8) of FSMA 2000,(ii) in relation to the PRA, the panels mentioned in section 2NA(8) of FSMA 2000, and(iii) in relation to the Payment Systems Regulator, a panel established under section 103(3) of the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013;(b) “specified” means specified in regulations under this section.(6) Regulations under this section are subject to the negative procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would provide the Treasury with a power to make regulations to require annual reports to be produced by the statutory panels established under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013.
Baroness Penn
“(1A) The statement must provide information about— (a) how representations (including by a statutory panel) can be made to the Bank with respect to its review of rules under section 300I, and(b) the arrangements to ensure that those representations are considered.(1B) In this section “statutory panel” has the meaning given by section 1RB(5).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would impose a duty on the Bank of England to ensure that the Bank includes in its statement of policy about the review of rules (required by section 300J of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, as inserted by Clause 46) information about how representations (including by statutory panels) can be made and considered.
(ii) the Bank’s secondary innovation objective (see section 30D(2) of the Bank of England Act 1998);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that new section 300L of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, as inserted by Clause 46 of the Bill, includes, for the purposes of the Bank’s report, a reference to the Bank’s secondary innovation objective, as inserted by Clause 45 of the Bill.(The words after “advance” in section 300L(2)(a) would become sub- paragraph (i)).
Baroness Penn
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that new paragraph 33B of Schedule 17A to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, as inserted by Clause 47(14) of the Bill, includes a reference to the Bank’s secondary innovation objective, as inserted into the Bank of England Act 1998 by Clause 45 of the Bill.
“(g) in sub-paragraph (5A)(b)(ii) and (c)(ii), the references to the PRA being notified were references to the Bank being notified.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would extend the duties of the Bank of England to notify the Treasury Committee of the House of Commons so as to include a relevant Committee of the House of Lords and a Joint Committee.
Baroness Penn
“(1A) The statement must provide information about—(a) how representations (including by a relevant panel) can be made to the Regulator with respect to its review of requirements under section 104B, and(b) the arrangements to ensure that those representations are considered.(1B) In this section “relevant panel” means—(a) a panel of the Payment Systems Regulator established under section 103(3), (b) a panel of the FCA mentioned in section 1RA(8) of FSMA 2000, and(c) a panel of the PRA mentioned in section 2NA(8) of FSMA 2000.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would impose a duty on the Payment Systems Regulator to ensure that the Regulator includes in its statement of policy about the review of requirements (required by section 104B of the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013, as inserted by paragraph 7 of Schedule 7 to the Bill) information about how representations (including by statutory panels) can be made and considered.
“(bb) set out how the Regulator has complied with the statement of policy on panel appointments prepared under section 104I in relation to the process for making appointments and the matters considered in determining who is appointed,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the Payment Systems Regulator includes in its annual report under paragraph 7 of Schedule 4 to the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013 a summary of how it has complied with the statement of policy on panel appointments in section 104I as inserted into the 2013 Act by paragraph 7 of Schedule 7.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with the amendment at page 159, line 5, would extend the duties of the Payment Systems Regulator to notify the Treasury Committee of the House of Commons so as to include a relevant Committee of the House of Lords and a Joint Committee.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment at page 158, line 36.
“(5A) References in this paragraph to the relevant Parliamentary Committees are references to—(a) the Treasury Committee of the House of Commons,(b) the Committee of the House of Lords which—(i) is charged with responsibility by that House for the purposes of this paragraph, and(ii) has notified the Regulator that it is a relevant Parliamentary Committee for those purposes, and(c) the Joint Committee of both Houses which—(i) is charged with responsibility by those Houses for the purposes of this paragraph, and(ii) has notified the Regulator that it is a relevant Parliamentary Committee for those purposes.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment at page 158, line 36.
Baroness Penn
“(4D) Where representations are made to the FCA by a Committee of the House of Commons or the House of Lords or a Joint Committee of both Houses in accordance with subsection (2)(e), the FCA’s account mentioned in subsection (4) must also describe how the FCA has considered the representations made by that Committee in making the proposed rules.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would impose a duty on the FCA to include in the account that the FCA must publish under section 138I(4) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 details about representations made by Parliamentary Committees.
“(4D) Where representations are made to the PRA by a Committee of the House of Commons or the House of Lords or a Joint Committee of both Houses in accordance with subsection (2)(e), the PRA’s account mentioned in subsection (4) must also describe how the PRA has considered the representations made by that Committee in making the proposed rules.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would impose a duty on the PRA to include in the account that the PRA must publish under section 138J(4) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 details about representations made by Parliamentary Committees.
“(5D) Where representations are made to the Payment Systems Regulator by a Committee of the House of Commons or the House of Lords or a Joint Committee of both Houses in accordance with subsection (3)(d), the Payment Systems Regulator’s account mentioned in subsection (5) must also describe how the Payment Systems Regulator has considered the representations made by that Committee in making the proposed requirement.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would impose a duty on the Payment Systems Regulator to include in the account that the Payment Systems Regulator must publish under section 104(5) of the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013 details about representations made by Parliamentary Committees.
Baroness Penn
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment at page 160, line 29.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government recognises that, while digital payments are increasingly present in our society, cash continues to play a vital role in many people’s everyday lives. That is why this Bill puts in place a framework to protect the ability of people and businesses across the UK to access cash withdrawal and deposit facilities for the first time in UK law and introduces new powers for the FCA.
It is important to recognise that, on the whole, cash access in the UK remains comprehensive. Industry is already funding a range of new and innovative services to support communities and ensure that they have easy access to cash. To date, LINK has recommended new shared cash access services in over 100 communities across the UK. This includes the introduction of over 50 shared banking hubs. While the opening of these facilities is taking time to get right, I welcome the recent openings of new hubs in Troon in Ayrshire and Acton in west London. I also understand that the pace of delivery is due to accelerate over the coming months.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate and I will speak to Amendments 82 to 85 and 110 and 111 in my name. I start by thanking the Minister and Treasury officials for all the work they have done around access to cash and, indeed, the moves they have taken. It is great testament to all those organisations which have campaigned on cash for so many years, and will make a real difference to people up and down the country.
Without in any sense pre-empting the work that the regulator and others will do on this, I ask my noble friend the Minister to set out some thoughts on what reasonable access might look like. What are the Government expecting? Allied to that, while I join her in welcoming the increase in the number of shared banking hubs that are coming online, what do the Government see as a reasonable number of hubs to be open by the end of this year?
My Amendment 82 seeks to go further and is really predicated on a very simple belief: what point is access to cash if there are no places to spend it? What currency does cash have in those circumstances? The start point would be really to have all businesses with a physical presence mandated to accept cash. Stepping back from that, as my amendment does, does my noble friend the Minister not agree that any government service, be it central or local, and any public service, particularly that which involves a payment, must accept cash? Similarly, any third party acting on behalf of national or local government in performing a public service should be mandated to accept cash. Does my noble friend see it as reasonable for any business, private though it may be, with a turnover of £100,000—as set out in my Amendment 82—to have to continue to accept cash while we move and transition towards a more digital financial services system?
Amendment 83 seeks to make our cash network part of the critical national infrastructure. There are two key reasons for this. First, it would enable cash usage, enable the economy to work and enable financial inclusion. Secondly, does my noble friend the Minister not agree that, when one looks at the current geopolitical state of the world, making the cash network part of the critical national infrastructure would provide a good second and third line of resilience if the digital systems should go down or suffer an attack? As things stand, that is not beyond the realms of possibility.
Amendment 84 addresses banking services specifically and would enable the Treasury to determine that such services must be available on a high street with a certain number of shops and premises. Banking services would include withdrawals and deposits and must cover both individuals and businesses. Indeed, as the amendment sets out, if there is a last branch standing, that branch should not be allowed to close unless alternative provisions are already in place, such as a banking hub.
Amendment 85 addresses the accessibility of financial services and products. This is differentiated from access to financial services, although there are some obvious overlaps. The amendment points out the difficulties with the accessibility of certain financial services and products. The obvious and most easy example to understand is card payment machines where the buttons are removed and there is merely a flat screen. They are completely inaccessible for me and thousands of people.
In Committee, my noble friend the Minister talked about discussions between the Government, the RNIB and other organisations. Can she update the House on where those discussions have got to? How will the Government ensure that, whether one is paying for a meal or a bicycle, the means of payment is accessible for all those seeking to use it?
Amendment 110 addresses the need for a review of access to digital financial services and products. I raised this in Committee and do so again because it seems highly necessary and a logical next step from the Access to Cash Review, which was completed in 2019. Although I am a staunch supporter of cash and people’s access to and acceptance of it, the future is digital. However, we must ensure not only that that future is accessible but, equally crucially, that the transition to it is accessible. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that further work by HMT in this area would not only make sense following the Access to Cash Review but do a great service in addressing issues which will be felt sharply if we do not address them at this stage?
I will give just one brief example. I could have on my handheld device the best mobile banking app ever created, but if I do not have the digital skills and the confidence to use that app, no payment will be made. Similarly, if, in those same circumstances, I have those digital skills but no mobile connectivity or broadband, that payment will not be made. We need this review of access to digital financial services, before these problems become acute and they affect not only people’s finances but all elements of their lives.
Finally, Amendment 111 addresses the issue of the last branch standing in any particular location but seeks to push a bit further. If there is a remaining branch on a town high street, that is a good thing. However, if that branch does not offer a full banking service, particularly to small and medium-sized businesses and micro-businesses, and if it does not serve more than 20% of the local community, does my noble friend the Minister not agree that we should change the regulations to enable a shared banking hub to be opened in that area?
I look forward to my noble friend the Minister’s response. I hope she will respond fully to all my amendments, but particularly to Amendment 111. A very simple change between Report and Third Reading would make such a potential difference for many of the areas in those circumstances.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I will be exceedingly brief because we took, as we should have, a lot of time on this issue during Committee. We have also discussed financial exclusion already. Once again, I am channelling my noble friend Lady Tyler of Enfield, who wishes that she were not ill and could be here today. I will focus my remarks on Amendment 80 in the name of my noble friend Lady Tyler, and which is signed by me.
The numbers that have been provided to any parliamentarian of interest by LINK on the rate of bank branch closures are frankly scary. The number of bank branches is now below 5,000 across the country and is expected to fall to around 1,000 in the next few years. Amendment 80 gives the FCA power, where certain conditions are met, to direct the establishment of a banking hub. Banking hubs are the solution proposed by the banking industry, in association with LINK, to provide a physical banking facility which is essentially a collective of the relevant banks and the Post Office, in locations where bank branches have disappeared. I am very sympathetic to the idea that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, proposed, where a branch in name but not in practice because its services are so limited would qualify as well.
LINK has recommended 100 of these shared hubs, but so far only six have opened. Quite often, that is because of the resistance of the banking institutions, which, in effect under the current scheme, have a veto on whether these hubs happen. The gap is yawning and the FCA needs to step in. Because this was raised in Committee, I say that anyone who thinks that online banking is a substitute for face-to-face banking can live only a very vanilla life. I found out the hard way that the systems online and the telephone constantly get it wrong. Often, the only way to resolve a complex issue is face to face. As others have said, including the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, the 5 million people who find digital difficult are even more disadvantaged.
I seriously hope that the Government will accept Amendment 80 because it is the missing mechanism to deliver the project—the Government themselves back the project—of banking hubs and shared banking. To get it delivered we need Amendment 80 to put powers into the hands of the FCA to make sure that it happens. This is a project, I repeat, that the Government themselves have sponsored, in a sense. We need the enablement and delivery to take place rapidly.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, on tabling his amendments and his tenacity in raising these issues on a very regular basis. He is absolutely right to do so. We were pleased to table Amendment 81 in Committee, and we re-signed it when retabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, on Report.
We strongly welcome the Government finally bringing forward meaningful protections for cash access. Just in case the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, starts to doubt his powers of persuasion, we wonder if the Minister could explain why the noble Lord did not seem to have the magic touch when it came to getting him to accept it. The position seems to have changed somewhat now.
It is good that organisations such as Which? have welcomed this concession, noting that cash continues to be hugely important for many households, particularly those which need to keep track of their spending during the cost of living crisis. People should not have to pay fees to access their own money. While we welcomed the Government’s previous move to offer cashback at some retailers without a purchase, cashback services are not available anywhere near widely enough for that to be a substitute.
We welcome the progress made, but there is obviously a lot more to be done. An increasing number of people are finding themselves with little or no access to face-to-face banking services. While the banking hub initiative has promise, its coverage is too limited for it to be anything like a viable solution at this point. We welcome the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, has tabled several amendments on this. We hope that the Minister is able to go beyond previous assurances, and we look forward to her reply.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I will first address the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, on the change between Committee and Report. On a whole host of areas, we have reflected on the discussions we had in Committee. The Government have taken the time to do that work and were able to bring forward amendments at this stage, whereas we simply were not able to bring forward amendments on a whole host of topics in Committee. I do not think it is anything to do with differing powers of persuasion between the different stages.
My noble friend Lord Holmes has many of the amendments in this group. I am glad that he also welcomes the Government’s amendments in this area. He asked what reasonable access would look like; that further detail will be for the policy statement. It is important to recognise that currently, on the whole, cash access remains extensive. According to FCA analysis, over 96% of the population are within 2 kilometres of a free-to-use cash access point.
Turning to my noble friend’s amendments, I too acknowledge his persistent campaigning on the provision of access to cash across successive financial services Bills. However, the Government are not able to support the approach in Amendment 82. We do not consider it necessary or appropriate to place additional requirements on organisations to accept cash across the public and private sectors. This should be a decision for individual organisations as they decide how best to operate. What I can say to my noble friend is that the provisions in the Bill do not reflect access just to withdrawal facilities but to deposit facilities, which will support organisations to continue to accept cash.
On Amendment 83, again, this is an issue that my noble friend has raised previously. The designation of critical national infrastructure is sensitive and is not made public. I reassure my noble friend and all noble Lords that appropriate arrangements are in place to ensure the resilience of the UK’s financial system, including cash provision.
I turn to Amendment 80 from the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and Amendments 84 and 111 from my noble friend Lord Holmes, which all relate to access to banking services. I acknowledge the strength of feeling on this topic and the perspectives that have been raised. As people acknowledge, it is clear that the nature of banking is changing, and the long-term trend is moving towards greater use of digital and telephone banking services over traditional branches. Of course, it is vital that those customers who rely on physical services are not left behind, which is why the FCA is taking an assertive approach to its guidance for firms on this issue.
Where firms are closing branches, the regulator expects them to put in place appropriate alternatives where reasonable. If firms fall short, the FCA can and will ask for closures to be paused or for other options to be put in place. Beyond digital access, several banks are rolling out community outreach initiatives when they close branches, maintaining key physical services in local libraries, shopping centres and roaming vans. Over 99% of personal and 95% of business customers can, and do, do their everyday banking at 11,500 Post Office branches.
On banking hubs, determining their location and the range of services provided is a commercial decision. My noble friend asked what would be a reasonable number of hubs to have open by the end of the year. As I said earlier, over 50 have been announced. We expect delivery on that commitment to pick up as this year progresses. Furthermore, since the last debate, several firms have made the commitment that, where a banking hub has been announced as a result of their branch closure, they will not close that branch until the hub is open, so we have a double lock of improving the speed of delivery but not losing services until we see improvement in the pace of delivery. That is welcome and shows that the industry is taking this issue seriously.
Regarding accessibility in my noble friend Lord Holmes’s Amendments 85 and 110, I absolutely share his ambition for financial services to be accessible to all. He spoke about some of the work that we discussed in Committee and asked for an update. Perhaps I can write to him after today’s debate with an update on that work.
I turn to the amendment on a review of digital inclusivity. Many financial services firms also support access to digital services through initiatives to distribute devices, teach skills, or facilitate support networks. The Government recognise that we need to be proactive in this space, and there is a range of work under way to ensure that financial services adapt to the needs of consumers in the digital age and to address the issues that my noble friend rightly raised. These include driving further progress on access to digital infrastructure, connectivity and skills to fully benefit from this transition.
I am grateful to my noble friend for his constructive challenge of the Government’s approach to this important issue. I assure him and all noble Lords that the Treasury will continue to consider where there may be gaps in the Government’s approach and ensure that no one is left behind as we evolve into new ways of managing our money. An example of this is that the Government recently held a call for evidence on the Payment Services Regulations, which invited views on this policy. We are currently considering responses, including where these are linked to financial inclusion.
I hope that, although the Government are not able to support the other amendments in this group, I have reassured noble Lords that the Government consider these issues very seriously through this work. I hope that noble Lords do not move their amendments when they are reached.
Baroness Penn
“(3A) A “free cash access service” is a cash access service that is—(a) a free of charge service which enables cash to be placed on a relevant personal current account, or(b) a free of charge service which enables cash to be withdrawn from a relevant personal current account.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide a definition of “free cash access service” in new Part 8B of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, as inserted by paragraph 1 of Schedule 8 to the Bill.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment at page 161, line 15.
“(3A) A “relevant personal current account” means a relevant current account held by one or more individuals for purposes outside any business, trade, craft or profession of that individual or those individuals.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide a definition of “relevant personal current account” in new Part 8B of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, as inserted by paragraph 1 of Schedule 8 to the Bill.
“(2A) The reference to cash access services in subsection (2) includes free cash access services.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would clarify that the cash access policy statement that the Treasury must prepare under new Part 8B of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, as inserted by paragraph 1 of Schedule 8 to the Bill, includes policies concerning free cash access services.
Baroness Penn
“(1A) In this section references to cash access services include references to free cash access services.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the FCA’s duty, in new section 131U of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, as inserted by paragraph 1 of Schedule 8 to the Bill, of seeking to ensure reasonable provision of cash access services includes seeking to ensure reasonable provision of free cash access services.
Baroness Penn
“(2A) Regulations under this paragraph may apply to partial property transfers generally or only to partial property transfers—(a) of a specified kind, or(b) made or applying in specified circumstances.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide consistency with other parts of Schedule 11 on Central counterparties by clarifying that regulations made under paragraph 75 (restriction of partial transfers) may apply to transfers generally or only to transfers of a particular kind or in particular circumstances, as specified in the regulations.
Baroness Penn
“(5A) A liability, to the extent of its reduction by a write-down order under this section, is to be treated as extinguished unless and until revived by section 377H or 377I.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would clarify the effect of a write-down order under section 377A (to be inserted into FSMA 2000 by paragraph 1 of Schedule 12 to the Bill) on the treatment of liabilities reduced by the order.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would correct a reference in the table of termination events in the context of describing when a write-down order regarding the value of an insurer’s liabilities ceases to have effect.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide a drafting clarification to ensure that the effect of a write- down order is more clearly reflected in this provision concerning compensation to policyholders where insurers are in financial difficulties.
Lord Harlech
“The Ombudsman scheme
(1) FSMA 2000 is amended as follows.(2) In section 429 (Parliamentary control of statutory instruments), in subsection (2B) after paragraph (c) insert—“(d) provision made under paragraph 15(3) of Schedule 17.”(3) Paragraph 15 of Schedule 17 (the Ombudsman scheme: power of scheme operator to charge fees) is amended as set out in subsections (4) and (5).(4) In sub-paragraph (1) after “respondent” insert “or other persons of a specified description”.(5) After sub-paragraph (2) insert—“(3) The reference in sub-paragraph (1) to persons of a specified description is a reference to such descriptions of persons as may be specified in regulations made by the Treasury.(4) The power conferred by sub-paragraph (3) to specify descriptions of persons may not be exercised so as to provide for eligible complainants to fall within a specified description of persons.(5) The reference in sub-paragraph (4) to “eligible complainants” is a reference to complainants who are eligible in relation to the compulsory or voluntary jurisdiction of the ombudsman scheme (see section 226(6) and 227(7)).(6) Before making regulations under sub-paragraph (3) the Treasury must consult the scheme operator.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would enable the scheme operator of the Financial Ombudsman Scheme to make rules requiring persons of a description specified in regulations, other than eligible complainants, to pay fees in connection with the investigation of complaints (in addition to the existing power to impose fees on persons who are the subject of complaints).
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, the Financial Ombudsman Service was established through the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to provide for the proportionate, prompt and informal resolution of disputes between consumers and financial services firms. The FOS offers a cost-free service for consumers, which is fundamental to its purpose.
The FOS is funded by a combination of an annual levy on regulated firms and case fees. Under the current framework, it is responsible for setting its case fee rules and can charge case fees only to firms that are subject to complaints. This means that claims management companies—or CMCs—and other professional representatives cannot be charged for bringing cases to the FOS. The Government heard the concerns raised by noble Lords, particularly by my noble friend Lady Noakes during Grand Committee, about CMCs bringing large numbers of vexatious claims against firms to the FOS.
Amendment 90 therefore addresses those concerns by amending FSMA 2000 to give the Treasury the power to make regulations specifying categories of persons to whom the FOS can charge case fees. The Treasury intends to add CMCs and other professional representatives such as law firms to this list. This will enable the FOS to amend its rules to charge case fees to CMCs and other professional representatives for bringing complaints, subject to its usual consultation processes. By specifying who can be charged by the FOS in regulations, the Government can ensure that the full range of claims management models can be effectively captured. It also allows flexibility to amend this list in future if different models emerge.
The Government are clear that all consumers should be able to access the FOS free of charge and without the need for any CMC support. The FOS remaining a cost-free service for consumers is fundamental to its purpose. The amendment therefore expressly prevents the Treasury adding consumers to the categories of persons who can be included in the regulations.
In summary, Amendment 90 will ensure that the Treasury is able to empower the FOS to charge case fees to CMCs while ensuring that the FOS remains cost-free for consumers. I beg to move.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
From these Benches, the amendment makes sense to us.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Happily, it makes sense to us as well. Without wishing to delay anybody—remembering the exchanges we had before this debate started today—I wonder whether the Minister could indicate the level of fees. He said that consumers would be excluded, which is very important. Are the Government confident that this will not in any way suppress the use of this service? Do they have anything in mind to improve awareness of the service among consumers?
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions in this short debate and thank both noble Baronesses for them.
On case fees, the amendment follows the existing approach under FSMA to allow the FOS to charge fees to respondents. Under this approach, the Government set out through legislation who the FOS is able to charge fees to and it will be for the FOS to set the detail of those case fee rules. This may include when firms should be charged; for example, from the first case or after a certain number of cases. Similarly, the amendment will not prescribe the specific approach the FOS will have to take in charging CMCs—it will be for the FOS to look at those fees. The FOS highlighted concerns from industry about this issue in its feedback statement following its recent consultation on its funding framework, and it acknowledged examples of poor behaviour by CMCs.
The Government agree that there are wider implications and it is critical that the bodies in the financial services regulatory framework, including the FCA and the FOS, co-operate effectively. That is why Clause 38 introduces a statutory duty for the FCA, the FOS and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme to co-operate on issues that have significant implications for each other or for the wider financial services market. Clause 38 also ensures that the FCA, the FOS and the FSCS put appropriate arrangements in place for stakeholders to provide representations on their compliance with this new duty to co-operate on matters with wider implications. These organisations already co-operate on a voluntary basis through the existing wider implications framework. Clause 38 will enhance that co-operation and ensure that these arrangements endure over time while retaining the operational independence of the bodies involved.
As I have set out, the Government are clear that all consumers should be able to access the FOS free of charge, without the need of any CMC support. Amendment 90 will enable this.