House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
The Minister for Equalities (Stuart Andrew)
The Government remain committed to publishing a draft Bill on banning conversion practices for pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses in this parliamentary Session.
Stephen Farry
It is now over five years since the Government first made a commitment to legislate on conversion therapy, and more recently there was a promise that legislation would be tabled this spring. Can the Minister elaborate on some of the reasons for the delay, and perhaps be more clear about when the legislation will be brought forward?
Stuart Andrew
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are absolutely committed to introducing the Bill in its draft stage as soon as possible. It is a complex matter. It is something that I have felt very passionately about over many years, but it is right that we get the legislation right. I hope that we will be able to present it as soon as possible.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree with me and, indeed, with the former Prime Minister that conversion therapy is “abhorrent”? If he does agree, does he think it is abhorrent for everyone?
Stuart Andrew
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her question. I absolutely agree that it is abhorrent; moreover, it does not work—that is a serious point. Yes, I do believe that that is with regard to everyone.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Given that the Minister has agreed that conversion therapy is abhorrent, and given what my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) said about five years having passed since we were first told that it would be banned—we were then told that the Bill had been scrapped, then that it would be coming back, and then that it would come back with a loophole about consent—does the Minister agree that that confusion is causing unacceptable stress, confusion and fear among the LGBT community? Will the Government commit to ending the confusion soon?
Stuart Andrew
I do not want anybody in the LGBT community to feel fear—I have had that experience myself and I would not wish it on anyone. That is why we are making sure that the Bill is a good Bill that delivers good law to ensure that we outlaw those abhorrent practices. I recognise that the delay has caused some issues for the community, but I assure them that we are on their side.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
Through my personal dealings with the Minister, I know how much he is committed to making sure that this legislation comes forward. Can he reassure me that, despite what some have said, the Bill is not about stopping parents from having meaningful conversations with their children who may be questioning their sexuality?
Stuart Andrew
My hon. Friend raises an important point. That is why we need to consider the evidence carefully; those conversations that parents have with their children are really important. I will never forget the conversations I had with my mum and dad, who helped me when I was coming out.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
Some 1,835 days have passed since the Government first promised to ban conversion practices. That is longer than it takes to make a good Bill—it is longer than it took to build the Empire State Building and the Shard put together. We were told in January that a Bill would be published “shortly”. Seven months later, can the Minister tell LGBT people how many more days, weeks, months, or even years they must wait?
Stuart Andrew
I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave a moment ago.
Anneliese Dodds
The answer that the Minister gave a moment ago was that we would see something before the end of this Parliament. I am afraid that is not good enough for those LGBT people who have been waiting for too long.
I will ask the Minister another question. We heard from the Government during their consultation on this ban—even that was almost two years ago now—that they would let some of the worst practitioners off the hook by including a consent loophole. Does the Minister seriously think that LGBT people can consent to abuse and, if not, will he end the charade and remove that loophole so that every LGBT person is protected?
Stuart Andrew
I respectfully say to the hon. Lady that she has not seen the Bill yet, so it is a bit early to make those comments. This is exactly why we are making sure that a Joint Committee of both Houses looks at the Bill; it is a very complex piece of legislation. We want to make sure that it outlaws those awful practices, but also ensures that people—clinicians, parents, teachers and so on—do not feel a chilling effect. It is right that we get stakeholders and people from this House engaged in that process, so that when the Bill is presented to the House for debate, it is in the best possible position.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
Since April last year, we have been running a substantial campaign to raise awareness and increase take-up. There are strong indications that this campaign is working. Applications for pension credit were around 75% higher in the year to May 2023 than in the same period the year before.
Anne McLaughlin
My retired constituents, from Dennistoun to Ruchazie, from Carntyne to Blackhill, and across the north and east of Glasgow, know that I am a champion for their rights. That is why I set up the all-party parliamentary group on pension credit, and why I and my team have sat with hundreds of older constituents and helped them to apply for pension credit, which is after all their right. I choose to do this as a constituency MP, but it is our role to champion the rights of older people, and the Minister is not telling me anything that is giving me any comfort that she is actually going to champion them. When will she start doing that?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Lady for the work that she does for her constituents. Many MPs use the Help to Claim service or the benefits calculator to assist constituents. I think she will be keen to know that the Minister responsible for pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), announced the innovative Invitation to Claim trial, which will be held in 10 local authorities across Great Britain this summer. It will involve the Department for Work and Pensions sending letters to 2,600 pensioner households identified by housing benefit data and most likely to be entitled to pension credit. That is on top of the wide-ranging communications we are already doing.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for the answers she has given. Clearly, there is a reluctance among people who are entitled to this benefit to actually claim it. What action is she taking to break down that taboo, so that people who are fully entitled to this money and desperately need it actually claim it?
Mims Davies
I thank my hon. Friend for that point because some people do not come forward. It is in their make-up. We need to help them to be encouraged that they are absolutely entitled to the benefit. I reassure him that the DWP received around 21,000 claims in the two weeks in the run-up to 19 May, which was 171% up compared with the corresponding weeks in 2022, so the actions we are all taking are working.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)
The Government have published a range of advice and guidance to help public bodies comply with the Equality Act. The Equality and Human Rights Commission also publishes technical guidance on complying with the public sector equality duty. I will shortly be reissuing my December 2021 update to Ministers on how to comply with the public sector equality duty, especially when it comes to completing equalities impact assessments, and I hope that that is distributed widely.
Neale Hanvey
With the Met police force reluctant to investigate murderous threats towards three sitting MPs for their lawfully protected beliefs and characteristics; a convicted criminal calling for violence against women at Trans Pride incoherently defended as freedom of expression by that same force; and broadcasters, journalists, faith leaders and even the Equalities and Human Rights Commissioner for Scotland all having had their bank accounts closed for what appear to be their lawfully protected characteristics, will the Minister meet me and other affected Members to consider how we tackle this dangerous misinformation, rampant homophobia and misogyny being promoted in our institutions by organisations such as Stonewall?
Kemi Badenoch
I take the points that the hon. Gentleman has made very seriously, and I would be very happy to meet him. We are a free and fair society, and we must protect free speech and allow open discussion, as long as it does not break the law.
On bank account closures, banks and other payment services, providers occupy a privileged place in our society, and it would be a serious concern if financial services are being denied to anyone exercising their right to lawful free speech. I need to express this: a notice period of fair and open communication with a customer must apply in those situations that relate to termination on grounds other than suspected or actual criminal offences or when otherwise allowed by law. The Government are currently reviewing evidence on whether the existing payment services and account termination framework is operating effectively, or if further clarification is needed.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
We were all delighted that the Government appointed an independent inquiry chaired by Lord Etherton to look into the disgraceful treatment of LGBT soldiers, sailors and air people before 2001 and the fact that those wrongs have not yet been put right. That report was given to the Government some three weeks ago now, and I understand that the Government have said they will produce it before the summer. Will they also answer the report at that time, will they give us a date for it and will there be an oral statement in this House, so we can quiz the Government on the report?
Kemi Badenoch
I will speak to my ministerial colleagues in the Ministry of Defence who have received the report, and ensure that my hon. Friend receives a response.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)
I am working with Cabinet colleagues to harness the skills, innovation and talent of UK female entrepreneurs, and widen opportunities for the next generation of women setting up businesses. That is why we launched a women-led high-growth enterprise taskforce. Building on the work of the Rose review, it brings together some of the country’s most successful female entrepreneurs, led by the founder of Starling Bank, Anne Boden.
Virginia Crosbie
I thank the Minister for her answer. We have brilliant successful female entrepreneurs across Anglesey, including Laurel Knight at Medic 1, Lynne Farr at the Beaumaris Artisan Market, Helen Evans at the Amlwch Artisan Studio, and Jo Weir at Beau’s Tea Rooms. We also have some fabulous successful male entrepreneurs such as Celfyn and Emrys Furlong. They are supported by organisations such as Alison Cork’s Make It Your Business, the British Library’s Business and IP Centre, the Federation of Small Businesses Wales, and Small Business Saturday UK. How are this Government supporting those organisations to broaden their reach and empower even more fabulous female entrepreneurs?
Kemi Badenoch
My hon. Friend rightly mentions some of the highly successful initiatives led by entrepreneurs, male and female, across Anglesey, which we fully support. Those are exactly the sort of organisations that we like to see flourish across the UK. Just last week, I spoke to the women and enterprise all-party group, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey). That was attended by female entrepreneurs from across the country, who talked about how the Government are investing in women, and how the Rose review and the high-growth enterprise taskforce are having an impact on their lives and businesses.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
Pathways, a new approach for women and enterprise, was commissioned by the Scottish Government. It has begun to implement, along with key stakeholders, including enterprise agencies, the Scottish National Investment Bank and private investors, ways to include under-represented parts of society in the business system. What steps are the UK Government taking to weave inclusivity through the business support system in a similar fashion to that in Scotland?
Kemi Badenoch
We believe that businesses are best placed to do that themselves, and we provide as much advice, guidance and support as possible. For example, the British Business Bank has led many schemes and initiatives to promote inclusivity in the workplace. However, if there is something specific where the hon. Gentleman thinks there is a gap in the market, I would be happy to hear about such an initiative.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
Under the Conservatives, just 12% of executive directors of FTSE 250 companies are women—a gap that will not close until 2058 at the current rate. Women who want to go into business cannot wait for the Conservatives to get their act together. They need a new deal for working people, a review of the gender pay gap, and a menopause action plan in the workplace. That is Labour’s pro-business, pro-women plan to smash the glass ceiling and break down the barriers. Does the Minister have a plan?
Kemi Badenoch
I am afraid that the shadow Front-Bench spokeswoman is confusing all sorts of different things. FTSE directors are not the ones who need support getting into the workplace. She is talking about a menopause action plan, but we have had one, completed and delivered it, while Labour Members are just talking about bringing one in, which shows that they are not paying attention. We are the only ones who will be doing what is right to promote gender equality in the workplace.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
The Minister for Women (Maria Caulfield)
The Government are already taking action to improve outcomes for men and boys. For example, through the introduction of shared parental leave, men now have more opportunity to take time away from the workplace to care for their children. We continue to work closely across Government to embed equalities policies for both men and women.
Nick Fletcher
I thank the Minister for her answer, but does she believe that there should be a Minister for Men, as there is a Minister for Women?
Maria Caulfield
I thank my hon. Friend for his hard work in this space as chair of the all-party group on issues affecting men and boys. He knows—this is with my health hat on—of the work that we are doing to improve lung cancer outcomes for men, and about the suicide prevention strategy that will be coming forward; we know that middle-aged men are at particular risk. I reassure him that the Equality Hub has responsibility for both men and women to ensure equality for all, and I will speak to the Minister for Women and Equalities so that we can be clearer about how that work impacts on men.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Current legislation requires all public facilities to have sanitary bins in female and gender-neutral toilets. However, as highlighted by the Boys Need Bins campaign, hygiene bins need to be provided in men’s toilets. What steps is the Minister taking to introduce legislation that addresses that issue?
Maria Caulfield
I reassure the hon. Lady that work is going on in that space. My ministerial colleagues from the Department for Work and Pensions are looking at this, and will be updating the House shortly.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)
The Government have taken numerous steps to tackle gender and racial inequality in the workplace, as seen with the comprehensive actions outlined in our landmark “Inclusive Britain” strategy, as well as various initiatives to support women in the workplace. As outlined in our “Inclusive Britain” report, we are working towards a new voluntary inclusion confident scheme to support employers on clear, manageable advice on effective diversity and inclusion interventions.
Hannah Bardell
Like most things in this place, this Government’s policy on parental leave is in the dark ages. Research by Pregnant Then Screwed shows that better-paid parental leave for all parents would bring better equality in the labour market, yet this Government seem dogged in their determination to stand still. Why are the Government blocking greater gender equality in the workplace?
Kemi Badenoch
I completely disagree with the hon. Lady. This Government have done more than any other to promote gender equality in the workplace, including bringing in policies such as shared parental leave. We have also brought in extended redundancy protection for those on maternity leave and introduced carer’s leave, and we are supporting legislation to strengthen the protections against harassment in the workplace.
Ms Qaisar
A new report from the Fawcett Society shows the motherhood pay penalty and how mothers with two children take home 26% less income than women without children, impacting on a woman’s income and earning power throughout her working life. It compounds the effects of the ethnicity pay gap. Will the UK Government tackle that by making flexible working the default and introducing mandatory gender and ethnicity pay gap reporting?
Kemi Badenoch
We have just finished a private Member’s Bill that makes the right to ask for flexible working mandatory. That strikes the right balance for business, rather than making it mandatory for people to demand flexible working. Not every business can provide it, and it is not something that will improve equality in the workplace.
Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
When I asked black and minority ethnic residents in Basingstoke about their experience at work, their responses were concerning. I have been working especially with our big local employers, the local education authority and the NHS to tackle the issues. What is my right hon. Friend doing to ensure that public services are exemplars when it comes to race equality in the workplace?
Kemi Badenoch
If my right hon. Friend sees the work that we have put into our “Inclusive Britain” strategy, she will see that almost everything that is in action is about the public sector. There is so much we can do to promote racial equality in the workplace, but we need to do that fairly and transparently, as well as universally. The Equality Act 2010 protects characteristics, not groups. If she would like to work with me on any specific initiative, I would be keen to hear more from her about what she has been working on.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
There are growing concerns about new technology such as artificial intelligence and automation software being used in recruitment and employment. Studies show that AI perpetuates bias across gender, race, age and disability, as well as dialect and regional differences of speech. What recent assessment has the Minister made of the equalities impact of AI use in recruitment and the workplace? Has she raised that with Cabinet colleagues?
Kemi Badenoch
Yes, I have raised it with Cabinet colleagues. In fact, I had a meeting with the Government chief scientific officer just last week on this issue. It is a concern that AI can embed bias, and that means we need to look at the datasets and large language models that are informing the AI being used. Equality impact assessments apply to the public sector equality duty, and much of AI is being done in the private sector. We will do our part, but I am keen to hear from Members about specific initiatives that they think can help.
Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)
In February this year, we announced the STEM ReCharge pilot to support parents and carers back into science, technology, engineering and mathematics roles. Since then, we have recruited and trained the first cohort of engineering and technology returners in the midlands and the north of England. They have received personalised training and support to help to get them back into the workforce, and we are now recruiting a second cohort, who will use insight and lessons learned from the pilot to develop new guidance, so that STEM employers across the UK can benefit from the full wealth of the returning STEM group.
Dame Maria Miller
The summer holidays, which are approaching, see a spike in domestic abuse. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that people know there is help available? Will she lend her support to the campaign I am running in Basingstoke with the police and crime commissioner Donna Jones to help to make sure that victims of domestic abuse in north Hampshire know they are not alone and that there is help there?
Kemi Badenoch
I agree with my right hon. Friend. It is important that people know where to go for help when they have experienced domestic abuse. The Government are providing police and crime commissioners with dedicated ringfenced funding for at least 900 independent sexual violence and domestic abuse advisers and will fund an additional 100, bringing the total to more than 1,000 by 2025.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
The Government recognise the challenges for disabled people and those with health conditions. The £150 disability cost of living payment should be seen as one part of the overall package. The benefits calculators on gov.uk will help people to claim the wider benefits that are out there—that is just one of the payments.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
The Minister for Women (Maria Caulfield)
Studying STEM A-levels such as physics can boost potential earnings and, with a growing demand for students with STEM qualifications in the jobs market, it is important that girls take that opportunity. We are therefore working with the Department for Education in funding the Inclusion in Schools project, which is designed to increase the uptake of A-level physics among students from under-represented groups, including girls.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
The Minister for Equalities (Stuart Andrew)
The hon. Lady raises a very important point. I am pleased to report that I have met colleagues in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and we have held a roundtable to discuss exactly those issues. One of the key elements, which we really need to do, is to gather the data so that we can better understand some of the causes and what the solutions might be to help those people.
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
Kemi Badenoch
I have been working closely with the Education Secretary, because it is important that we get the guidance for schools right. It must show schools how to be compassionate to pupils questioning their gender in a way that is compliant with the Equality Act 2010, including ensuring that single-sex spaces are maintained and the safety and wellbeing of all pupils is not compromised.
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Stuart Andrew
The hon. Lady raised some important points. That is exactly why we have taken considerable care to engage with a whole range of stakeholders to consider all the issues that need addressing. It is precisely because of those points that we are going for pre-legislative scrunty so that all of those issues can be looked at again, to ensure that we present the very best Bill to help people who are subject to these horrible crimes.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
GambleAware figures show that the number of women seeking help for problem gambling doubled between 2015 and 2020, with up to 1 million women deemed to be at risk. Data also shows that women are less likely to participate in sports betting; instead, they are more active in online bingo and casino-style games. What work is my right hon. Friend doing with Cabinet colleagues to highlight the risk of online gambling, to reduce stigma and to help women seek treatment?
Stuart Andrew
My hon. Friend raises a really important point. We recently published the gambling White Paper, in which we address a number of those issues. Stigma is a very important one. We want people to come forward and get the treatment they need. We are also introducing a statutory levy on gambling operators to ensure that we have the prevention and treatment needed to help those suffering with gambling harm.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
Educating girls is one of the top priorities under the British Government’s international development strategy—indeed, it is the way to change the world. Over the last five years for which figures are available, the British taxpayer procured a decent education for more than 8 million children in the poor world.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
The Deputy Prime Minister (Oliver Dowden)
I have been asked to reply.
Global oil prices have remained largely stable this year. This has not changed following the announcement of additional production cuts by Saudi Arabia and Russia. We expect that the impact of the cuts will be mitigated by the increase in supply from other producers and a decrease in global oil demand, as we have seen previously.
Steven Bonnar
If we want to insulate ourselves from future price rises, we need to invest in a greener future. The United States gets it: it has committed $370 billion to net zero energy. The European Union gets it: it is set to match that figure. In Scotland, we get it. We have the ambition to lead the world on renewable energy. We have the energy but not the power. Why is Westminster trying to block Scotland’s path to a safer, greener future?
The Deputy Prime Minister
We of course will continue to invest in renewables, but I say to the Scottish National party that we should also invest in our energy independence, and that means investing in the North sea. If we fail to invest in the North sea, we will be more reliant on foreign producers and we will have higher carbon emissions as we import from elsewhere.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in Vilnius, attending the NATO summit. It is an opportunity to build on the work we have done over the past year, strengthening NATO and supporting Ukraine. In addition to my meetings in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Craig Mackinlay
New Labour’s old mantra was “Education, education, education.” Its new one seems to be “Tax education, tax education, tax education.” Does the Deputy Prime Minister share my disgust at Labour’s plans to tax education of choice, which could lead to 40,000 pupils being sent into the state sector, with a cost to the taxpayer? A number of English language schools in my constituency are concerned that this will also apply to them, as well as to out-of-hours tuition and sports training. Does the Deputy Prime Minister object to those measures as strongly as I do?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Once again, we have seen the Labour party putting the politics of envy above the interests of children in this country. As my hon. Friend rightly highlights, recent analysis shows that it could lead to over 40,000 pupils leaving the schools they are in, placing further burdens on existing schools and costing £300 million.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
I know you are a keen historian, Mr Speaker, so I looked up the last time a Prime Minister missed two sessions in a row for other engagements. It was March 1996. I am very proud to be filling the boots of Lord John Prescott, but I think it is safe to say that the Deputy Prime Minister is no Heseltine. John Prescott asked, why is it that in Tory Britain, tens of thousands of families are facing repossession, negative equity and homelessness? Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us, 27 years later, why I am having to ask the same question?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Clearly, the right hon. Lady did not listen to my previous comments. The Prime Minister is at NATO. Of course, that would not be a problem if she had had her way. Her old boss wanted to abandon Ukraine, abolish the Army and withdraw from NATO, and he certainly would not be going to any summit. When it comes to house building, I will take no lectures from the Labour party on home ownership. My parents would not have been able to buy their own home if it were not for Margaret Thatcher and the reforms introduced by her Government, and this Government are building on those with record house building.
Angela Rayner
I think the right hon. Gentleman is taking lessons from the former Prime Minister on telling the facts. The last Labour Government worked hard to dramatically reduce the number of children in temporary accommodation, but under the Tories the number of homeless children has risen by 75%. I am proud of our record on tackling child poverty. Does the right hon. Gentleman feel ashamed of his?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I will tell the right hon. Lady what this Government have done: we have lifted 400,000 children out of child poverty; we have introduced the national living wage, something the Labour party totally failed to do; and we have increased the national living wage by the largest amount ever, meaning £1,800 for working people and cutting their taxes by doubling the personal allowance. That is the surest way to ensure we lift people out of poverty, and it would never have happened under the Labour party.
Angela Rayner
It is like the ghost of Prime Minister past. I tell the right hon. Gentleman that he should be careful about the stats he uses, because the Children’s Commissioner warned the other Prime Minister about peddling false narratives on child poverty around those figures. The truth is that rising bills, soaring mortgages and plummeting real wages are pushing more and more families to the brink. Those already struggling are being hit hardest by the Tory mortgage bombshell and rising food costs, so can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many primary school children have been pushed into poverty since his Government took power?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I say to the right hon. Lady that it was this Conservative party, not the Labour party, that extended free school meals to all five, six and seven-year-olds—something the Labour party failed to do—and that sits alongside many measures we are taking to help people with the cost of living. We paid half of families’ energy bills last winter, funded by our 75% windfall tax, and we are freezing fuel duty, helping families with childcare and delivering on our pledge to reduce the debt. It may come as a surprise to her, but balancing the books means more than working out how many more millions to take from her union paymasters.
Angela Rayner
Once again, the right hon. Gentleman talks about balancing the books. His party crashed the economy and he seems to be completely oblivious to what it is like for working people in this country at the moment. New research out today shows that 400,000 more primary school-age children are growing up in poverty since his Government came to office. Why does he think that is?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I will take absolutely no lectures whatsoever from the Labour party about how we help children in the most need. It is record investment from this Government in education—£2 billion more this year, £2 billion next year—which is giving those very children the best possible start in life, ensuring that we have the highest reading standards in the western world. I have to say to the right hon. Lady, her leader says he hates tree huggers, but they seem very keen on hugging that magic money tree.
Angela Rayner
The right hon. Gentleman does not even acknowledge that child poverty is rising, let alone explain why. What hope has he got of solving it? Let me try a simpler question: how many kids do not have a permanent address today compared with when Labour left office in 2010?
The Deputy Prime Minister
We can exchange all these numbers across the Dispatch Boxes, but these are the numbers that matter. There are 1.7 million fewer people in absolute poverty under this Government, 400,000 fewer children, 200,000 fewer pensioners and 1 million fewer people of working age, because the single best route out of poverty is a job, and record numbers of people—4 million more under this Government—have got a job. That is the difference between this Conservative party and the Labour party, which always leaves office with unemployment higher.
Angela Rayner
What matters is what people feel every single day at the moment—going to work yet they cannot afford their mortgage, their rent or their Bills, because of this Conservative Government. There are 55,000 more children without a permanent address today compared with when the Tories took office 13 years ago. We have gone from a Labour Cabinet focused on tackling child poverty to Tory Ministers who will not even admit the problem. Just as in March 1996, they can offer only excuses, not answers. John Prescott asked Michael Heseltine that day:
“How can the right hon. Gentleman be so complacent in the face of the sheer misery created by the Government’s policies?”—[Official Report, 5 March 1996; Vol. 273, c. 147.]
Twenty-seven years on, why are we asking the exact same thing?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I know there is an Opposition reshuffle coming up, but this audition for John Prescott’s old job is getting a little bit hackneyed. It is this Government who have lifted 400,000 children out of poverty. I hear the right hon. Lady claiming that Labour is the party of working people, but under their policies people cannot even get to work. They support Just Stop Oil protesters blocking our roads, they support their union paymasters stopping our trains, and of course they support the hated ultra-low emission zone stopping cars across our capital. While Conservatives get Britain moving, Labour stands in everyone’s way.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises an important point about both start-up capital and ensuring that we get more money to high-growth companies. The Chancellor’s pension compact is a very important step forward, which will unlock £75 billion of additional investment. I am quite confident that large amounts of that will go to UK companies, and it sits alongside measures such as the Edinburgh reforms to financial services, which will help improve financial services in this country and unlock money for those industries.
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Last month, the Deputy Prime Minister dismissed warnings from the SNP Benches that mortgage rates were nearly back to where they were after the disastrous mini-Budget. This week, mortgage rates have surpassed those levels. How high do they need to go before he and his Government take this seriously?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Lady knows—people around the world know—that the driver of higher mortgage rates is higher inflation, and higher inflation is caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and by the post-covid supply chains. What we have to do is make sure that we halve inflation. It is only by getting inflation under control that we will be able to get mortgage rates down, and that requires discipline—discipline on spending, on public sector pay and on energy supply, all of which are lacking from the SNP.
Mhairi Black
The Bank of England predicts that mortgage payments will rise by at least £500 for a million households. The Prime Minister says that people need to “hold their nerve”; the Chancellor said just last night that mortgage holders should just “shop around”. Speaking of his own party, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Sir Gary Streeter) said:
“If the circus doesn’t stop by Christmas, it’s over”.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister understand that people cannot afford to wait until Christmas and that they need help right now?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The fundamental thing that we have to do is to halve inflation. That is an approach that the International Monetary Fund “strongly endorses”, because higher inflation drives higher mortgage rates. But that is not all we are doing: with the mortgage charter, signed up to by 90% of mortgage providers, we are giving people help to extend their terms, to go interest-only and to reduce their monthly payments. That action is supported by Martin Lewis, a real money-saving expert, unlike the big spenders on the SNP Benches.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I am of course very happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. I note that we have provided £7.5 billion of additional funding for social care and discharge. On energy specifically, we have an energy advice service to support smaller businesses and we have been piloting new audit and grant schemes that may also help.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
In January, Emily booked an appointment with her local dentist in Chard, Somerset, for 14 June, only to be told by a neighbour at the end of May that the surgery had closed in April. Emily no longer has a dentist, all the remaining surgeries are not taking on any new patients, and Emily does not know what to do, so will the Deputy Prime Minister tell Emily and millions of people like her when they can get an appointment with a local NHS dentist?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman may have missed it, but our NHS workforce plan is investing an extra £2.4 billion into training and retaining crucial NHS staff, including dentists and GPs. The number of dentists will rise by 40%. I say to people across that constituency that the best way they can ensure better services for their NHS is to vote for Faye Purbrick, the Conservative candidate.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
As well as my right hon. Friend having been an excellent Minister, I know how committed he is to the town of Andover. We will shortly announce the new approach to the third round and further details will follow shortly.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I will tell the hon. Gentleman what real compassion looks like: stopping the vile people-smuggling trade across the channel that is condemning women and children to death. This Government are taking action to deal with it through our “stop the boats” Bill, which the Scottish National party shamefully voted against 18 times last night.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I know my hon. Friend is passionate in championing this issue. Almost 850,000 households have been helped to purchase a home since 2010. In 2021, the number of people getting on to the property ladder for the first time was at a 20-year high, thanks to initiatives such as First Homes and the Help to Buy scheme. Of course, that stands in contrast to the Labour party, which oversaw the lowest level of house building since the 1920s.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister
It is important that the railways continue to reform after the record amount of money we gave them during covid. If the hon. Lady is concerned about her constituents getting anywhere on the railways, I gently say that she should condemn the totally unjustified strikes that close them down week after week.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend has been making a powerful case for this scheme, and she does so once again. The Chancellor is sitting next to me and will have heard her. I understand that the outline business case submitted by Essex County Council is being considered by Ministers right now, and all relevant Ministers will have heard her injunction.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
The Deputy Prime Minister
As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out in his autumn statement, we are exploring the best approach to consumer protection from April 2024 as part of wider retail market reforms. I reiterate that we paid half of energy bills in Scotland last winter, thanks to the strength of our Union.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
May I remind the Deputy Prime Minister and the House that yesterday was National Remembering Srebrenica Day? May I particularly point out a little-known fact? British soldiers took about 2,000 civilians out of Srebrenica in April 1993. Those British soldiers were from B Squadron 9th/12th Lancers. It is not widely known, but, under my command, they saved a huge number of lives by taking those people out of Srebrenica. They, too, should be remembered for their very gallant actions, because it was very dangerous.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I pay tribute to my right hon. and gallant Friend and to all those whom he commanded in the 1990s. We must honour the memory of those killed, and pay tribute to the extraordinary courage shown by their families, survivors and all those members of our armed forces, who served so gallantly in that situation.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
The Deputy Prime Minister
It is thanks to the strength of our United Kingdom that record sums are going to Wales under the Barnett consequentials. Indeed, in the spring Budget we increased devolved Administration funding by £630 million, which included £180 million for the Welsh Government. We are ensuring that resources are going to Wales, so that they can enhance their transport infrastructure.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
If it were not so serious, it would be comical, but in Horning on the Norfolk broads, a whole area is to be totally cut off from a mobile signal until—wait for it—August, because of nesting seagulls taking up residency in the new telecoms mast. Gulls are protected and the nest cannot be moved, but if a family holidaying on the broads gets into distress this summer, they will not be able to make an emergency call. That could be life-threatening, so will the Deputy Prime Minister please help me by calling on Natural England to be sensible and make sure that, for public safety reasons, we can get a mobile phone mast working in a prime holiday location?
The Deputy Prime Minister
We all love the diversity of wildlife in this country and particularly on the North Norfolk coast, which my hon. Friend represents. He makes a strong point about the balance between that and ensuring that people have access to modern communication facilities, and I shall certainly take that up with Natural England.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister
We can see from the record of this Government, whether on cutting NHS waiting lists, or on providing record funding for our schools and hospitals, that we have an excellent team who will continue to serve.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
Last week, we all celebrated the 75th anniversary of the NHS, but hon. Members may not be aware that it is also the 75th anniversary of Newton Aycliffe, a new town in my constituency designed by William Beveridge. Will the Deputy Prime Minister ask the Prime Minister to come and visit me, as his constituency neighbour, and celebrate these 75 years, and indeed the 60 years of the community newspaper provided by the Howarth family?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I cannot speak to the Prime Minister’s diary, although I will make representations. I would be delighted to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency, if he wishes me to attend instead.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
The Deputy Prime Minister
It is deeply disturbing, upsetting and worrying for anyone to contemplate losing their home. That is exactly why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has introduced the mortgage charter, which 90% of the mortgage market has now signed up to and which will provide support to people. In addition, after three months, people on universal credit can apply for further support.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
A Government survey has shown that 75% of British businesses support improvements to the UK’s sick pay system. Yesterday, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) launched a report, alongside WPI Economics and the Centre for Progressive Change, with ideas about how that could be done. Will my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister ensure that we get a meeting with the Chancellor, ahead of the autumn Budget, to see what ideas can be developed? They could provide an economic boost of £4 billion to the UK economy.
The Deputy Prime Minister
As ever, my hon. Friend has made a strong case. The Chancellor is sitting next to me and I am quite sure he would be delighted to meet with him.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the need for care supporters to be able to have that kind of access. I will take away the points he has raised, and raise them with my ministerial colleagues.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
Mr Speaker, you know the value of inter-parliamentary relations and, in particular, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, which was founded nearly 135 years ago in this place. We are honoured this week to be joined by the president of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, Mr Duarte Pacheco. Would my right hon. Friend join his campaign to get the USA to rejoin this important international organisation?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As my right hon. Friend knows, the United Kingdom was a founding member of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. I would very much like the United States to rejoin and I am happy to help make that case.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Deputy Prime Minister
As the hon. Lady knows, we have supported the Bill and we are working on it. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities is very happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss the measures further.
Points of Order
(10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not know whether you are as shocked as I am, but the Deputy Prime Minister had the opportunity to correct the record today after he misled the House on 7 June. He failed to do so.
Mr Speaker
Order. As we know, we cannot say “misled”. He must have inadvertently misled the House.
Dawn Butler
Mr Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister inadvertently misled the House, but did not come to correct the record, even though we had made it clear that he had done so. I refer to the idea of £28 billion costing mortgage payers £1,000 a year. The only place that that appeared was in the Daily Mail. He is disrespecting you, Mr Speaker. He is disrespecting Parliament and the House and, according to the ministerial code, he should now resign. Mr Speaker, can you advise me on this? He is in breach of the ministerial code—how can I ensure that he resigns?
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of her point of order. As I said last week, the responsibility lies with the Minister to make any necessary correction to the record. It is on the Government to look at themselves. If the ministerial code is not being adhered to, I really think that the rules need to be looked at again so that Ministers—do not forget that elections change Ministers as well—ensure that this House hears the facts. I will leave it at that.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a related point of order. I wrote to the Prime Minister on 17 January to ask him to support my Elected Representatives (Codes of Conduct) Bill, which aims to restore confidence and trust in politics and politicians by, among other things, allowing the independent adviser on ministerial standards to commission their own inquiries. Unfortunately, I have still had no response from the Prime Minister. I followed this up with a letter on 9 June, which included a series of questions about the process by which he decided not to ask his independent adviser to undertake an inquiry into the Home Secretary in relation to her allegedly pressurising officials to assist her with a speeding offence.
I appreciate that we are about a week from recess, so I wonder whether you can advise me, Mr Speaker, on how I can get a timely response from the Prime Minister?
Mr Speaker
First, let me thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of her point of order. As she will know, this is not a matter for the Chair, but there are clear expectations that correspondence from hon. Members will be dealt with within a reasonable timeframe. I stress that Members deserve early replies on behalf of their constituents. It is the constituents who put MPs in this House. I do not mind which part of the Chamber they come from, but I expect Ministers, who all seem to want the job, to take the job seriously and ensure that hon. Members get the replies in due time.
I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench are making a key note of this to ensure that that reply will be here before the House rises. I am sure, as I know the hon. Member, that she will remind me before the House is up if that reply has not arrived. None the less, I stress that it is time that this Government respect Members from all parts of this House. It is becoming apparent that they are disrespectful and it is not acceptable.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to correct the record. During yesterday’s debate on the Illegal Migration Bill, I inadvertently said that the Minister had reminded us that we had taken 550 million refugees since 2015. It was an obvious error. I want to put it on the record that what I meant to say was that the Minister had reminded us that we had taken 550,000 refugees since 2015—a number of which we can still be proud.
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. I am also grateful that she has come forward to correct the record. I hope that she has set an example for others to follow. I thank her for that.
Primary Care Services (Report)
Wednesday 12th July 2023
(10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Primary care services (report) Bill 2022-23 View all Primary care services (report) Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to appoint an independent reviewer to prepare a quarterly report containing an assessment of primary care services; to require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament each report prepared by the independent reviewer; to require such reports to include the independent reviewer’s assessment of any measures taken to improve general practice services, dental services, community pharmacy services, optometry services, and mental health services; and for connected purposes.
Primary care services across the country are in crisis. People cannot get a GP appointment when they need one, some pharmacies are closing, people are resorting to DIY dentistry, and waiting lists for mental health appointments are sky high. The Government point to their recent long-term workforce plan as evidence that they are taking action, but that plan is only partially funded and will do nothing to increase staff levels now. Perhaps if the Government had not spent a year whipping their MPs to vote against any attempts to put a workforce plan into law, they might have made some progress, but we are where we are and it is legitimate for the British public to expect a Government who can plan for the long term while taking more immediate measures.
To be blunt, it is clear to me that MPs on both sides of the House are losing patience and are worried about the lack of urgency and action from the Government in fixing the front door to our NHS. The Bill seeks to force the Government to come clean about the challenges facing primary care health services specifically, such as GPs and dentists, by appointing an independent reviewer to report on the state and condition of primary care services every three months so that we can hold the Government’s feet to the fire on progress.
The Bill cannot come soon enough for patients. Let me start by detailing some of the urgent problems in GP services using a story that I have received from Gareth in Wimbledon. One morning recently, Gareth developed sudden loss of vision in the entire left field in both eyes, rendering him partially blind. Gareth tried to get an appointment with his GP, but due to a lack of appointments that day and a non-existent online booking system, he was instructed to call at 8 am the following morning. It was not until the next day that he managed to get an urgent referral for a brain MRI scan, which confirmed that Gareth had suffered a small stroke. With all strokes, the first 72 hours are critical to reduce the chance of subsequent strokes. His GP was undoubtedly dealing with hundreds of other urgent cases that day, but for Gareth, losing 24 hours due to a lack of capacity at his local GP could have been catastrophic. That is the real-world impact of the Government’s failure to recruit and retain GPs, and their failure to invest in IT infrastructure.
Let us remember that back in 2019 the Government promised to deliver 6,000 more GPs. Not only did they break that promise, but the number of fully qualified GPs has fallen by more than 900 since they made it. Those falling numbers have hit some areas harder than others. In places such as Somerset, the falling number of GPs is causing a shortage of appointments. Indeed, the number of GPs has fallen by 50 since 2016 in the area, and the number of patients per GP has increased by a massive 400. Shockingly, that is far higher than in the vast majority of England. In my county of Hertfordshire, there are now 2,203 patients per GP. I have heard from Denise, who spent the best part of the day on hold before giving up and trying the online booking system, which again turned out to be non-existent. While she was on hold for hours on the phone to her GP, by contrast it took just two minutes for Denise to book an online appointment at Specsavers. Everybody knows that the technology exists; it just has not been funded for our GP services.
All that is why the Liberal Democrats have pledged to ensure that we will have 8,000 more GPs working in the system within five years, with a campaign not only to train and recruit but to retain experienced practitioners. With that expanded workforce, everyone could see their GP within seven days for a first appointment.
However, it is not just the number of staff that is putting pressure on GP services. The Royal College of General Practitioners’ recent infrastructure report showed that 40% of general practice staff say their premises are not fit for purpose. Even when integrated care boards want to spend money on primary care infrastructure in city centres, for example, outdated Treasury rules do not allow them to—something that is happening in my St Albans constituency, and which I raised in this Chamber again just yesterday. Putting retention measures in place, accelerating improvements in IT infrastructure, fixing outdated treasury rules on investment in primary care infrastructure are just three of the challenges in general practice on which an independent reviewer could report progress to this House every three months until they are fixed.
In dentistry, too, we see Government incompetence at work. Last year, there was a £400 million underspend on the NHS dentistry budget, despite millions of people needing an appointment and thousands of dentists wanting to provide NHS care. It is absurd. Why are we in this position? Because the contract that the Government offers NHS dentists is so badly designed that dentists will not take it on, as they lose money on NHS dental treatment.
The Liberal Democrats have been calling for reform of the NHS dental contract so that it encourages and incentivises dentists to take on NHS patients, meets patient need and demand rather than arbitrary targets and finally puts an end to dental deserts. Just yesterday, the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) forewarned the Government that the Health and Social Care Committee, which he chairs, would be publishing its findings on NHS dentistry, and said that they would make for “uncomfortable reading”.
Again, locally, in places such Somerset, the real-world impact is that there is now only one dentist delivering NHS dental service for every 1,773 people. Somerset is among the 10 areas of England that have seen the biggest rise in patients per dentist since 2015, with each dentist now seeing more than 200 additional people.
However, what is truly an outrage is that tooth decay remains the most common reason for hospital admission among young children. It is a question not just of getting children the care they need, but of good use of public funds. The cost of treating a child for tooth decay in hospital far exceeds that of regular check-ups. Supervised tooth brushing training for children and removing the value added tax on children’s toothbrushes and toothpaste, as the Liberal Democrats have called for, would make a huge difference and cost next to nothing in comparison with dental surgery. Those are things the Government could be getting on with right now.
Of course, we know that community pharmacies are in crisis too, and we can see the impact that is having. For example, Peter from Winchester used to go to the pharmacy in Sainsbury’s until this year, when it was closed. The location was perfect, with plenty of space to park, and was easily accessible for disabled people. Now it is closed, Peter must take a special hour-long round trip to the next pharmacy, along heavily congested roads to a car park on a hill with only one disabled parking bay. As someone who is mobility impaired, his access to pharmacy services has been severely limited and his independence curtailed as a direct result of the pharmacy closures now taking place across the country.
This situation is completely unsustainable. The Government cannot just do a Dorothy; they cannot just click their heels together, say “Deliver, deliver, deliver”, and expect that GP and dental services will magically improve. They need to do things, they need to make decisions and they urgently need to improve primary care for patients right around the country. This Bill would in effect be a forcing mechanism, which would enable MPs every three months to hold the Government’s feet to the fire on their actions—or their inaction—on fixing the front door to our NHS. Given the crisis facing our primary care services, it cannot come soon enough.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Daisy Cooper, Wera Hobhouse, Tim Farron, Richard Foord and Munira Wilson present the Bill.
Daisy Cooper accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November, and to be printed (Bill 352).
Opposition Day
Automotive Industry
(10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House recognises that the automotive industry is the jewel in the crown of British manufacturing and believes it can have a bright future creating good jobs for people across the UK; regrets that after 13 years of Conservative neglect the UK risks losing this world-class industry, putting thousands of jobs under threat; condemns the Government for its lack of an industrial strategy and the negative impact this has had on investment in the UK’s automotive sector; calls on the Government to urgently resolve the rules of origin changes which are due to take effect in 2024, working with partners across Europe to negotiate a deal that works for manufacturers; and further calls on the Government to adopt an active industrial strategy to build the battery factory capacity needed to secure the automotive sector for decades to come.
It is a real pleasure to open this debate on an issue that I know is close to the hearts of many colleagues and constituents. Many Members present represent some of the most iconic names in UK automotive production. For me, it is very much an issue of huge personal significance. Sunderland, where I grew up, is of course renowned not just for its wonderful football team but for the tremendous success of the Nissan plant. I am very proud to say that many friends from my childhood still work in that plant. Of all the great businesses that I get to visit, that is one of my absolute favourites, and I know that colleagues will feel just as strongly about the parts of the automotive industry that they and their constituencies are associated with.
That industry is full of skilled and committed workers, innovation, export success and huge growth potential. However, we have called this Opposition day debate because even the most ardent defender of the Government could not fail to be worried about the health of the sector as it stands. The British car industry should and could be booming, as should the wider automotive sector, yet production has slumped by over a third under the Conservatives. There are huge concerns about a series of major policy failures, including domestic battery production facilities, trade barriers post Brexit, and higher energy costs and other supply chain issues. Although this is an Opposition day debate, I know that those concerns are shared widely across the House, and I hope that, by having this debate, we are able to express the clear political commitment of this House to that crucial sector.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
My hon. Friend will be aware of the world-class Toyota engine plant in my constituency that produces the highest-quality hybrid engines—one of the first plants outside Japan to do so. Does he agree that hybrid is part of the solution, not, as the Government think, part of the problem?
Jonathan Reynolds
I do not know whether I am supposed to declare an interest, but I drive a Toyota hybrid myself—I have a large family and have to get between Manchester and London, and that is a pretty sound option for doing so. I am aware of the issue that my hon. Friend raises, as is the shadow Transport Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh). We must be careful to ensure that there is certainty so that that transition we are all seeking can happen. I know that there are particular issues relating to that sector and that side of the industry. We are alert to those issues, and we will, of course, work with him, his constituents and the expertise in this country and beyond to ensure that that timescale is done properly. For many people seeking to make the transition—we are seeing a huge response from the public on that—that is the option that is currently available, particularly for families. We must bear in mind that the solution has to be something that works for all our constituents, and we must be cognisant of their concerns. I am grateful to him for raising that point at this stage of the debate.
I worry at times that the Government, and maybe especially the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, do not have a great deal of time for industry at all. Artificial intelligence, tech and financial services are all crucial sectors, but we should not for one moment think that there is no role for industry. Nor should we ever believe that there is a false choice between services and manufacturing. Support for the automotive sector is not nostalgia. Many of the plants that we will talk about in the debate are the lifeblood of their communities, providing good work and good wages. However, just as in other crucial industries—steel is another good example—I get no sense that securing the long-term future of the sector and managing the transition to a low-carbon economy are priorities for the Government.
That is not just the view of the Labour party; it is what industry itself has been telling the Government. Mike Hawes of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders said at its recent conference:
“We…need a…response urgently”.
Stellantis has warned that:
“If the cost of EV manufacturing in the U.K. becomes uncompetitive and unsustainable, operations will close.”
The automotive industry faces a series of challenges that must be taken seriously. The rules of origin, which are due to come into force from January next year, will require 45% of a vehicle’s value to be made in the UK or the EU or a 10% tariff will be imposed that will destroy most profit margins entirely. Of course, those requirements increase significantly over time. We have a lack of progress on battery manufacturing; Germany already has 10 times the battery-making capacity of the UK. We have wider business challenges, including the highest industrial energy costs in the G7, and rising inflation and borrowing costs.
However, what we have seen from other countries is that none of those challenges is insurmountable. Other countries are pulling ahead. China is home to numerous battery giants such as CATL and BYD, while the United States famously has Tesla. But the EU has also ramped up battery production through initiatives such as the European Battery Alliance and how has 35 battery factories in place. In contrast, the UK is yet to develop a robust battery manufacturing sector, which makes us heavily reliant on imports and risks the long-term presence of automotive production in this country.
I think we all recognise that, over time, vehicles will be built where the batteries are made, not the other way around. We will never be able to match the sheer fiscal firepower of the US Inflation Reduction Act, but we do have advantages—competitive advantages on workforce and skills, and on research and development—and if we had a Government with sufficient political commitment, the future could be very bright indeed.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
Last month, I visited the new Caterham Cars production plant in my constituency, to which the company has had to move because its production is insufficient to meet the demand that it has at the moment. It will take on more employees and apprentices, and it will manufacture more of the vehicles for which it is famous. I remind the shadow Secretary of State that that expansion in the industry has happened under a Conservative Government. Does he welcome that news?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am incredibly happy to welcome that news and the positive story that the hon. Member sets out, but I do not think that any of the success that he has seen detracts from the fact that there are significant policy challenges. The overall number of vehicles has declined, as he will know, and yes, the pandemic and the semi-conductor supply chain issues happened, but that does not remove the need for this House to take seriously the rules of origin, the battery-making capacity and so on. We are not in any way on track. There is also, frankly, the international competitive position. Other countries are simply indicating that they want those industries and that investment much more than we do. It is not so much that the Conservative party has turned up to a gunfight with a knife, but that it is not showing up to the fight at all.
What we need is a plan of action. That is what the Labour party has developed, and it is what we want the chance to implement should we form the next Government. Our plan addresses battery capacity and charging infrastructure, as well as key issues such as planning and grid regulation. We are up front about the challenges that we face, but we are ambitious for the future. Frankly, that is nothing short of what is required. Our plan starts with having an active industrial strategy. I know that some Conservatives do not like that kind of terminology, but I say simply that all countries need an industrial strategy. To go back to the example of Nissan, that was part of an explicit strategy—by even Margaret Thatcher’s Government—to attract automotive expertise to the UK. The absence of any coherent modern industrial strategy is hurting investment into the UK.
Other countries are simply pushing ahead, recognising that the challenges that we are facing have to be met nationally by Governments with skin in the game. Industry is crying out, first, for stability, and secondly, for a partner and some clear policy signals. That is exactly what it will get from a Labour Government. That is why we have said that we would put the new Industrial Strategy Council on a statutory footing, giving some reassurance that the instability of the Conservative years is at an end.
Our green prosperity plan will part-fund the battery-making gigafactories that are so essential to our future. That will be catalytic public investment to unlock the much greater sum of private investment we need. The reality is that no battery factory in the world has been developed without that kind of Government commitment. We know that the Government are in talks with some firms about potential investment decisions, and I say in good faith to Ministers, “That is good. We want you to succeed.” Where those companies need assurances from the Opposition should a change of Government occur, we will of course have those talks. However, it would be far better and a far better deal for the taxpayer to make those offers publicly, and to be negotiating with a range of potential partners to get the best deals for Britain, because domestic battery production is so important.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Could the shadow Minister clarify how many gigafactories this Government have enabled to be built in the UK?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am more than happy to. My hon. Friend will know that we currently have one facility, which is the Envision facility at Nissan in Sunderland. The overall number will depend on how big those factories are, but broadly we will need three to four in the interim, and by 2040 we will need eight to 10.
Germany, for instance, already has four to five gigafactories up and running. A further four are almost up and running, and it is in talks for a further advance on that position. The sense is that Germany is genuinely 10 times ahead of us in that capacity, and while people might think, “Well, Germany is a country with incredible automotive history, reputation and strength”, there are other countries that we are already losing out to. Spain, for instance, has a very active industrial strategy when it comes to the automotive sector, and eastern Europe has had tremendous success in that area. Because automotive is about regional markets, simply seeing what other countries are doing will have huge consequences for the potential for investment in this country. Crucially, we should be playing to the UK’s strengths in areas such as research and development, like the fantastic programmes at the UK Battery Industrialisation Centre in Warwick, which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley and I were able to visit recently.
Jonathan Reynolds
I thoroughly agree—the scale of ambition that I see around the world daunts me when I compare it with this Government’s ambition. There are some incredibly exciting technologies out there, including sodium-ion batteries that would reduce our dependence on lithium and almost certainly cut costs in battery production. Hydrogen is clearly going to be extremely exciting, as are fuel cells, and there are markets for off-road vehicles that could be huge potential markets for the UK. We should also not forget buses: that is an area in which new technology could contribute to things like cleaner air, as well as better transport.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
Does the shadow Minister agree that on top of battery innovation and hydrogen innovation, the UK is leading in another field: that of synthetic fuels? However, giving the automotive sector a really strong future in this country involves a whole-system analysis, not just of how the vehicle is manufactured but how the energy that will run it is manufactured. That involves looking again at the zero tailpipe standards that are coming in, because if we have that whole-system analysis, we will get to green technology and greener transport but with a whole-picture effect.
Jonathan Reynolds
I agree with part of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I agree about the whole-system analysis: many parts of the decarbonisation journey that industry will need to take on will be a much bigger question than simply unplugging one form of old fossil fuel technology and plugging in another. For instance, the steel industry will have to think about scrap if it is to make the conversion to electric arc furnaces; and if we are to move towards synthetic fuels, we will clearly have to look at where the feed stocks are coming from.
However, one of the most defining features of the past 13 years—I say this without any kind of partisanship—has been a series of very ambitious targets from this Government in areas that relate to decarbonisation, but with no real means to deliver them. That target is then pulled away, and confidence in the British state to decarbonise falls apart. I am thinking particularly about the famous “cut the green crap” comments from the former Prime Minister, David Cameron, regarding home insulation. When we talk about changing existing Government policy, we should not underestimate just how little confidence the international business community has in this Government’s promises at times. Broadly, the approach has been very ambitious targets but with no means to actually deliver them, which undermines the case.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a very effective speech. As he is talking about targets, will he come on to the roll-out of charging points? My constituency has three motorways in it and incredibly high levels of pollution. We need to remove all the barriers, both to net zero and to reducing that pollution. Does my hon. Friend agree that constituencies in the north such as mine need that situation addressed? It is shameful that, as I understand it, more chargers were installed in Westminster this year than across the whole of the north of England. We in the north have those issues of pollution, and we need to move faster in addressing them. My hon. Friend may be planning to come on to that point, but it is an important one.
Jonathan Reynolds
I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend for making those points. The approach of the Front Bench—from her, from me on industrial policy, and from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley on transport policy—must bring those two things together. We need the policies in place that will make this country a world leader in the production of vehicles and ensure that it also works for consumers. She raises the fact that there are more charging points in Westminster—I know my hon. Friend’s constituency, which is not far from mine—and the difference between comparable parts of this country, north and south, in the level, density and availability of chargers is unthinkable, let alone in comparison with Norway, for instance. Not only do we not have enough chargers but grid, maintenance and connection issues often mean they are out of order. I absolutely assure my hon. Friend that when we as a shadow Cabinet and a potential Government think about these issues, both vehicle production and consumers are paramount. Clearly, consumers want to purchase electric vehicles—that is the growth part of the market—but too often we do not have the infrastructure in place. It cannot be some form of novelty. I have driven electric vehicles around Greater Manchester when it was something of a novelty—I could get access to chargers and, at times, preferential parking spaces near Deansgate, which is no small thing—but for mass market usage, neither the policies nor the infrastructure are yet in place. That needs to be widely recognised.
On the international trade position, it was always imperative to have a domestic battery industry, but it has become an existential issue because of the Government’s approach to our trading relationship with the EU. As discussed in relation to regional export markets, eight in 10 vehicles made in the UK last year were exported, so it is widely recognised that the impending cliff edge in the trade and co-operation agreement with the EU on rules of origin is a serious challenge to the future of the sector in the UK. The Government have been far too slow to realise the scale of that danger, and while they may promise that a deal is coming soon, I am afraid that “soon” cannot come soon enough. Major UK manufacturers including Stellantis, Jaguar Land Rover and Ford have all warned that a failure to reach a deal would cost jobs in the UK.
It has been two and a half years since the trade and co-operation agreement was formally signed. That is precious time that could have been used to plan and prepare, but those are two words that this Government often fail to understand. What have they done in that time? They have not secured investment in battery capacity. They have not improved our relationship with our biggest export market, and they certainly have not worked with industry to find solutions.
We know that a breakthrough is needed, and we would use our plans to make Brexit work to ensure that the rules of origin work for British manufacturers. We cannot achieve a compromise without working with our partners in Europe, and I believe that only Labour can be that good-faith partner. Our plan to invest in battery capacity, alongside compromises on the rules of origin, is the sensible way forward to meet our climate objectives and trade obligations and retain our industrial base.
We will make the UK a clean energy superpower by 2030, with net zero carbon electricity lowering costs for the UK car industry by no longer leaving UK industry prone to the volatility of international gas prices, alongside better grid connections and planning reform to ensure that “made in Britain” does not become a thing of the past. That is the prospectus for action we need. Right now, this country needs some optimism. The mantra of this Government—that this is as good as it gets—is as depressing as it is wrong.
Jonathan Reynolds
I think those companies must have seen the opinion polls and are wondering whether a Labour Government are coming, if there is as positive news as that could be. I would simply say to all Conservative Members that, on any aspect of industrial policy, there is too often on their side a desire to pick individual stories or statistics and try to pretend that substantial and significant issues do not exist. If we talk to anybody reasonably objective in this sector, they will point out—on battery production, rules of origin, charging infrastructure, industrial energy prices—that there are real challenges and they require some serious engagement from the other side, which to date has not been forthcoming.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I would like to add to that comment—my hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, by the way—what was said at the industry conference held by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders a couple of weeks ago. The industry was speaking as one, and I am afraid it was critical of the Government, saying, “All these years on, remember that Baldrick at least had a cunning plan. Sadly, the Government don’t.”
Jonathan Reynolds
I followed that conference very closely—my hon. Friend the shadow Transport Secretary spoke at the conference, and I have spoken at that conference in the past—and that was absolutely the sentiment. Perhaps humility does not come easily to Conservative MPs, but I ask them to take on board those genuine views from the industry on the situation we find ourselves in.
The automotive sector could be a practical illustration of the transition to new jobs and new opportunities that we all want to see. We have laid out our plan for the sector. Some Conservative colleagues may disagree, but let us have from them some alternative proposals, because the status quo will not do. Our motion is a plan to deliver £30 billion in economic growth in the parts of the country that need it most. It is a plan that could create 80,000 additional jobs—good jobs of the kind that people can raise their family on. It is a plan for Britain that would mean we once again lead the pack and feel confident for the future. I believe the choice is clear—a plan under Labour or further decline under the Conservatives—and I think we all know whom the public would prefer behind the wheel.
The Minister for Industry and Economic Security (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
What a disappointing opening speech. There was an opportunity to praise, promote and protect the automotive sector—and to talk about all the positive news stories—but all we have heard for the last 10 or 15 minutes was the automotive sector being talked down. I appreciate that the timing of this debate has not gone well for the Opposition: as my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) mentioned, today we have heard about the Renault Group and Geely having chosen the UK as the headquarters of a new company developing ultra low emission engines and potentially investing billions of pounds in the UK—up to €7 billion. That shows not only the confidence of the automotive sector, but its commitment to the UK, and these are the opportunities or the stories we should be talking about.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) constantly referenced the SMMT statistics, but he forgot to mention the ones he should have reported at the Dispatch Box so that we could once again promote how healthy and dynamic the automotive sector is. Car production in Britain rose for a fourth straight month in May. The SMMT has confirmed that a total of 79,046 cars rolled out of the factory gates a few months ago, which is an increase of more than 26%. Passenger car numbers are boosted by a greater appetite for hybrid electric motors built in Britain. The bosses at the SMMT have said that, while there have of course been challenges around the world, manufacturers have
“defied the challenging economic backdrop to fulfil customer demand for the latest British-built models, at home and overseas,”
so that manufacturing and production are indeed up.
This is a positive news story, and any opportunity we have to speak about the automotive sector should be positive, not negative or all about political point scoring. This is a serious topic and a serious industry. I know the hon. Gentleman is keen to be very ideological within the Westminster bubble, but I would suggest he steps a little outside it. I know my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler), who is a champion for Toyota, which has the largest manufacturing plant in her constituency, would welcome a visit by Labour Members so they can see how the sector is booming just in her constituency. There are over 2,000 people working at the plant in South Derbyshire and involved in the supply chains, and 80% of the cars manufactured are exported to Europe. Exports are up, by the way, which I will get on to. Toyota continues to innovate and it is at the forefront of producing hybrid cars. It has been cutting emissions for over a decade and takes net zero seriously, having energy from solar panels all around the plant. The point she would want to make is, “Get out of the Westminster bubble, visit South Derbyshire, see what is happening at Toyota”—and at many other firms, as I will go on to say—“and you will see the work is going well.” Our job is to protect, promote and praise, not to talk the sector down.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
It is all very well and good talking about optimism, but does the Minister accept the reality facing the automotive industry in the UK today, and the stark warnings given by Stellantis about future job losses if the Government do not sort out the rules of origin problems?
Ms Ghani
I want to state for the record—and for the hon. Lady, who was obviously sitting there while I was speaking—that that was not optimism. Those were the facts and figures promoted not by Government, but by industry representatives. I had a meeting with Stellantis recently. We know that a number of challenges are reflected globally, not just in the UK, such as being able to recruit into the sector. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde missed another opportunity to talk about the fantastic jobs that are available. Of course, on rules of origin, that is an issue not just in the UK; it is an issue for lots of other countries that want to export and import, too.
Ms Ghani
This Government have a strong mandate to reach net zero and the consultation has just taken place on said mandate. The right hon. Member will know that I have been spending a lot time with the automotive sector, including taking delegations to meet the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), who will be overseeing that. My job—I also chair the Automotive Council—is to champion business, and on occasion to try to remove all the barriers it needs removed for it to manufacture more and export more. I know that the Transport Minister will be speaking more about that later.
I will get on to all points the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde raised, but he mentioned growing up in Sunderland. Just for the record—I can see there is a Birmingham MP here, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood)—I grew up in Birmingham very close to a car plant that employs many members of my family, including my brother Nasim, so this sector is very close to my heart. I have been told not to make any football jokes about Birmingham and Sunderland at this point; I will leave that for the final speech.
Matt Western
This point is not about football; it is about the debate. To pick up on the Minister’s analysis, she is correct on the statistics she gave about the UK market. She will know that we started from a pretty poor base post the pandemic and that our production was particularly hit, but other countries recovered better. It is an international market that is fighting for investment—I am sure she will accept that—and that is why it is of concern.
Ms Ghani
It is an international market that is fighting for supply chains. The SMMT was clear that, when manufacturing production was low, that was down to access to products and critical minerals, which I will come on to. As well as taking care of the industry, I am responsible for critical minerals and for supply chains. We are working with the industry, which I met just this morning, to put together a supply chain import strategy, which will be out in the autumn. We need to get a number of things right to make it even easier for the sector to do even better than it already is, but it is in a really good place and I will go on to mention some of the facts and stories about that.
The sector is indeed a jewel in the crown of our economy. It is vital, because of where it is based across the country, to supporting the levelling-up agenda, net zero and advancing global Britain. Our automotive industry employs 166,000 people, adds over £70 billion to the UK economy and is our second largest exporter of goods. The UK is proud to be home to major global manufacturers such as JLR, Nissan, Stellantis, Toyota, BMW and Ford. But that is not the whole of the UK’s automotive eco-system: we have a lot more to be proud of, from our luxury and performance sector, including Rolls-Royce, Bentley, Aston Martin, McLaren and Lotus, to heavy goods vehicles and buses, such as Leyland Trucks, Wrightbus, Alexander Dennis and Switch, as well as the future of mobility, encompassing connected and autonomous vehicles. Those manufacturers are supported by a diverse, resilient and growing UK supply chain that spans a wide range of components and includes companies such as Bosch, NSK, Meritor and Swindon Pressings. These are valued partnerships, and the sector knows that my Department for Business and Trade is the Government’s first port of call to help businesses grow and flourish, and to create jobs, apprenticeships and opportunities around the country.
Mike Amesbury
I thank the Minister for being generous with her time. All the manufacturers that she mentioned face a cliff edge in January 2024, with the 10% tariff. What are the Government going to do about it? It is desperate in terms of those jobs in our communities.
Ms Ghani
I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the rules of origin tariff. That is why we are working hard and negotiating with the EU, and working with our partner representative groups within the EU, so that they can be lobby as well. This is not just an issue in the UK. This is a European issue too, and we are making sure that those voices are heard loud and clear with our partners across Europe.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I have a specific question for clarity: have the Government formally requested a reopening of the rules of origin for 2024?
Ms Ghani
The Government are working hard to share the challenges that will be faced by all manufacturers in Europe, not just the UK, when it comes to importing and exporting vehicles. This is not just a UK issue, and it is important that not just we but our counterparts in Europe make these arguments loud and clear to the EU. I recently met SMMT and asked that its sister bodies do the same where they reside in European countries, to ensure that those arguments are heard loud and clear.
As I said, there is huge diversity of companies within the supply chain and manufacturing of all automotive vehicles, and the UK has a full automotive eco-system across the UK. The sector is here because it recognises the UK’s unique strengths. Our engineers are world class—it is not for nothing that six out of a total of 10 Formula 1 teams are based in the UK. More broadly, the sector recognises that this Government have its back. We want to use innovation, skills and a competitive business environment to ensure that the UK automotive sector can thrive.
Dr Luke Evans
I am grateful to the Minister, because she alluded to the point that I was making about the automotive industry. We have talked a lot about manufacturing, but the UK is the world leader in things such as research and development, as well as in testing—autonomous testing, safety testing; we are literally the world leaders in this stuff. I mainly know that because a lot of it is based in my patch. Does the Minister agree?
Ms Ghani
I could not disagree with my hon. Friend, who is a champion for all things technology and transport, as well as for his constituency. The investment made in R&D has enabled large manufacturing firms to work closely with our academic institutions, and to de-risk some of the technologies that are now becoming mainstream, and we continue to support that area. That leads on to my next point about the Advanced Propulsion Centre and the automotive transformation fund, which are key in us trying to de-risk and adopt new technologies to drive the sector forward.
On the Automotive Council, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde said that he was engaging with the sector, but I am not quite sure where and when. A lot of the comments he made will not go down well with the sector because they were not very positive on all the work it has been doing. I engage directly with firms to see how hard they are committed to the sector, and what they expect from their politicians is support, not to be talked down.
I put on record my thanks to Graham Hoare, the current co-chair, Mike Hawes, Neville Jackson, Ian Constance, Markus Grüneisl, Paul Willcox, Murray Paul, Adrian Hallmark, Michael Leiters, Tim Slatter, Alan Johnson, Richard Kenworthy and many other indispensable members of the Automotive Council. I thank them for all the work they do, considering how challenging times have been not just for us but for our counterparts in Europe. I recently spoke at the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Trader’s parliamentary reception, and I welcome its “Manifesto 2030” with its five key priorities: green automotive transformation strategy, net zero mobility, green skills, made in Britain, and powering UK clean tech. There is a lot that we agree on, and I look forward to working with the sector to try to protect and strengthen the whole automotive industry. Car companies want to innovate, and we want to support them to do so. That is why the Government have an overarching goal of making the UK a global hub for innovation, as alluded to by the my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth.
Greg Smith
In embracing that innovation—this is further to my intervention on the shadow Minister—the UK is a leader in the development of the synthetic fuel sector. By that, I do not mean fuels made from feedstocks; I mean green hydrogen merged with atmospheric carbon capture, whereby what comes out of the tailpipe is the same volume of carbon that is then recaptured to make the next load of fuel. With whole system analysis, that will be shown to be net zero, but the zero tailpipe mandate gets in the way of that. Does the Minister agree that, to embrace this innovation properly and to give an eclectic future to the automotive sector, we need to embrace those innovators as well?
Ms Ghani
We do need to embrace those innovators. One of the reasons we have so much investment in the UK in innovation and the automotive sector is that we are often first out of the door in helping to de-risk and test that technology. The Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire, will touch on tailings, but just last week I was at the Lower Thames Crossing, which is putting out a pitch to ensure that all vehicles on the construction site have green hydrogen. The several thousand vehicle movements on and off the site carrying freight will also have green hydrogen. The site is a port, and given the level of construction that is taking place, it may be one of the largest construction sites to get to green hydrogen first. I am not sure, but I think it is pretty well on track to being a world leader in that.
The UK-wide innovation strategy sets out our long-term plan for delivering innovation-led growth. Our primary objective is to boost private sector investment across the whole UK, creating the right conditions for all businesses to innovate, giving them confidence to do so and ensuring that we are leading the future by creating it.
Barbara Keeley
Will the Minister come on to the point that I raised with my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) about the roll-out of charging points? That is an important point. People are making decisions about electric vehicles, and we want them to make the right decisions. There is an absolute dearth of charging points in my constituency and many parts of Greater Manchester, and Westminster has installed more public electric charging points than the whole north of England. The Government are asleep at the wheel. When will they wake up and do something about that?
Ms Ghani
We are topping and tailing this debate with a Transport Minister and I know he is keen to touch on charging points, but the public charging network is growing quickly, and public charging devices have more than tripled in four years, from 10,300 devices in January 2019, to more than 43,000 in June 2023. The Government expect that around 300,000 charge points will be needed as a minimum by 2030. They are being rolled out at pace, but I do not doubt there will be constituency, case-by-case charge point concerns and the Minister will reflect on those.
One concern that the SMMT and all Members of Parliament who have manufacturing plants in their constituencies regularly raise with me is access to talent. Car companies need highly skilled individuals across the entirety of their business. One reason the UK is attractive is our world-leading universities, with four UK institutions in the global top 10, according to the QS world university rankings. But that is not all. We have supported the automotive sector through the apprenticeship levy, with £2.7 billion funding by the 2024-25 financial year. That will support apprenticeships in non-levy employers, often SMEs, where the Government will continue to pay 95% of apprentice training costs.
We recognise the importance of a level playing field. That is why, at the spring Budget, the Chancellor launched a new capital allowance offer. Businesses will now benefit from full expensing, which offers 100% first-year relief to companies on qualifying new main-rate plant and machinery investments from 1 April 2023 until 31 March 2026, the 50% first-year allowance for expenditure by companies on new special rate assets until 31 March 2026, and the annual investment allowance, which provides 100% first-year relief for plant and machinery investments up to £1 million.
Due to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, energy costs have been an issue and a concern for the sector. That is why we have again intervened on behalf of the automotive sector, as well as many others, to ensure that the UK’s offer is competitive. It is why the Government have implemented a range of targeted measures to ensure that energy costs for high energy intensive industries, including battery manufacturing, are in line with other major economies around the world, levelling the playing field for British companies across Europe through the British industry supercharger scheme. In addition, to take just one example, the industrial energy transformation fund, now in its third phase, was designed to help businesses with high energy use to cut their energy bills and carbon emissions by investing in energy-efficient and low-carbon technologies. This Government announced £315 million of funding in the 2018 Budget available up to 2027.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde talked about providing confidence and support for the sector, and I want to flesh out some of the announcements he was unable to bring himself to say at the Dispatch Box in case that was put into Hansard. Companies continue to show confidence in the UK, and we have announced major investments across the UK, including the £1 billion from Nissan and Envision to create an EV manufacturing hub in Sunderland. I was just on the phone to Envision this morning. It is an end-to-end supply chain. We have £100 million from Stellantis for its site in Ellesmere Port, and £380 million from Ford to make Halewood its first EV components site in Europe.
Jaguar Land Rover has also announced that it will be investing £15 billion over five years into its industrial footprint as part of its move towards electrification. That is great news for the west midlands, where JLR has three production sites, research and development facilities, and its headquarters. I am hugely confident that the UK will continue to attract investments large and small to enable the EV transition and deliver green jobs. Those are the stories we should be promoting at the Dispatch Box, not playing down.
The Government recognise the concerns of the sector, and we are dealing with serious global challenges, including rising costs because of Putin’s horrific war in Ukraine, supply chains disrupted by covid aftershocks and countries turning inward towards protectionism, by which, of course, I mean the Inflation Reduction Act. Acknowledging those issues, over the course of the summer I have been holding a series of business roundtables to understand exactly where the challenges in supply chains are most acute, and where the Government and businesses can work together more closely to ensure that the UK’s supply chains are resilient, now and in the future.
Those headwinds have been felt across the globe, and where the UK sector has been impacted, it has not been uniquely impacted. The entire automotive sector is midway through a once-in-a-lifetime shift away from the internal combustion engine towards zero-emission vehicles. That is good not just for our net zero ambitions; it also has the potential to provide wider economic and social benefits. Of course, our competitors know that too, and the race to secure zero-emission manufacturing capacity across the world is fierce. Some countries seem willing to spend eye-watering amounts. We will be offering targeted investment in the future of the auto manufacturing sector. That means focusing on exactly where we know we are ahead of the game internationally, offering targeted and measured support that reflects the size and scale of our outstanding automotive sector.
As I have said, we have more than a chequebook to attract companies to these shores; our highly productive and skilled workforce, focus on innovation and tech and the ease of doing business are key factors in a company’s decision to base itself in the UK. There is a backdrop of intensely challenging constraints on the sector globally, while the sector is undergoing a seismic technological transformation. It is clearly a difficult situation for manufacturers across the world, but there are positives to be considered, especially here in the UK. The SMMT reported that UK commercial vehicle production has just had its best May performance since 2008, growing by 36.9%—I thought the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde might crack a smile for the sector—and year-to-date output is some 47.6% above the pre-pandemic levels of 2019. That is the message we want to send internationally. It clearly shows that the UK automotive sector is strong, dynamic and fundamentally capable. I want the UK to have a thriving automotive industry. As we take on these global challenges, we will take them on together with the sector.
Some mention was made of R&D support, and I will share all the work we have done. Our R&D and capital programmes delivered through the Advanced Propulsion Centre and the automotive transformation fund are positioning the UK as one of the best places in the world to design, develop and build zero-emission vehicles. They are working together to support the creation of an internationally competitive electric vehicle supply chain. In the coming months, after engagement with industry, the Government will build on those programmes to take decisive action and ensure future investment in the manufacture of zero-emission vehicles, as part of our commitment to building a cleaner, greener, more sustainable Britain fit for the world of the future, not the world of the past that the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde is fixated on.
The automotive transformation fund supports the creation of an internationally competitive electric vehicle supply chain in the UK. It provides support to late-stage R&D and capital investments in strategically important technologies. That includes unlocking strategic investments in gigafactories, which I will come to, motors and drives, power electronics and fuel cell systems. Our automotive industry has a long and proud history. We are determined to build on our heritage as we invest in the technologies of the future, positioning the UK as one of the best locations in the world to manufacture electric vehicles.
I have spoken previously about the Advanced Propulsion Centre, because it does fantastic work in driving technology forward. It was founded in 2013 as a £1 billion joint venture between the automotive industry and the Government to help the industry meet the challenges of innovation and decarbonisation. It facilitates funding to UK-based research and development projects developing zero-emission technologies. The programme helps accelerate the development, commercialising and manufacture of advanced propulsion technologies in the UK. So far, it has supported 199 projects involving 450 partners. It is estimated to have supported more than 55,000 highly skilled jobs and is projected to save more than 350 million tonnes of CO2—the equivalent of removing the lifetime emissions of 14.1 million cars.
Those projects include the setting up of a joint venture between Unipart and Williams Advanced Engineering to manufacture batteries in Coventry, Danfoss setting up a centre of excellence for hydraulic R&D at its plant in Scotland, and Equipmake increasing the size of its manufacturing plant in Norfolk to meet demand for its electric drive unit. That shows how much work can be delivered and how many jobs created if we work with industry and help it de-risk in adopting new technologies.
I recently visited the Warwick Manufacturing Group, which the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde alluded to. I am surprised he did not applaud the work further.
Ms Ghani
He could have gone further.
I saw at first hand the cutting-edge future mobility research being done in Coventry, the birthplace of British motor manufacturing. While in Coventry, I also had the opportunity to attend the Advanced Propulsion Centre to discuss how we can build on the success of our existing R&D and capital investment programmes. During the visit I met year 6 pupils from Templars Primary School in Coventry who attended the Advanced Propulsion Centre’s STEM day. That is a prime example of outreach activity to inspire the next generation of automotive engineers.
We cannot talk about the automotive sector without thinking about the broader supply chain and one of my particular passions, critical minerals, which I am surprised the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde did not spend more time discussing. He missed out the key point of what is needed to produce electric vehicles. We know that China dominates the EV market, partly due to its grip on the supply chain. It controls much of the mining of crucial raw materials, and 80% of battery making for EVs is controlled by Chinese firms. It is also the world’s top car exporter.
I am not sure whether the hon. Member has had time to read Ed Conway’s recent book, “Material World”, which makes some key points on lithium. We know that reserves of the metal are concentrated in a handful of nations. In his book, he said that lithium reserves are concentrated in “a handful of nations”, so that “while the rest of the world panics about China’s dominance of the battery supply chain, many in Beijing are simultaneously panicking about China’s reliance on the rest of the world’s raw materials.”
We know that an EV car battery contains 40 kg of lithium, 10 kg of cobalt, 10 kg of manganese and 40 kg of nickel, and that is before we consider the graphite that goes into the anode. Those materials have to come from somewhere, which is why we updated our critical minerals strategy in the “Critical Minerals Refresh”—[Interruption.] That was a positive noise from the hon. Member—to ensure we were supporting the sector through the whole supply chain. I encourage colleagues to read Ed Conway’s book. I am not on commission, by the way; it is just a good read.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde talked about not having a strategy, but we are working with industry to make sure it can plan for the future. To do that, we had the “Critical Minerals Refresh”, which came from the integrated review. We are making sure that we are focused on batteries and the EV supply chain here in the UK. Recent good news that the hon. Member also forgot to mention is the joint venture between British Lithium and Imerys, announced on 29 June. That is a massive boost to the critical minerals supply chain in the UK.
By the end of the decade, the development of Cornwall as the UK’s leading lithium hub will supply enough lithium carbonate for 500,000 electric cars a year. To help secure the supply of critical minerals, the Government have not only refreshed our critical minerals strategy, but put in place a task and finish group to work with industry so that it can highlight its particular vulnerabilities and we can provide it with the confidence and resilience it needs in its supply chains.
Most recently, I visited Indonesia, where I met Indonesian Ministers to emphasise that the UK has a lot to offer on critical minerals, particularly in relation to private finance, environmental, social and governance capabilities, and mining services. I also visited key mine sites and met companies that are critical in the battery supply chain and in critical mineral production, including some innovative UK companies showcasing the best of British—I know that sentence would be hard for the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde ever to put on the record.
This year, I have also visited South Africa, where I represented the UK at the Minerals Security Partnership ministerial meeting and confirmed the UK’s intention to host the next such meeting during London Metal Exchange Week in October. I also visited Canada, where I signed the UK-Canada critical minerals statement of intent and launched our critical minerals dialogue with Canada, forging a key partnership with one of the most important global players in the critical minerals ecosystem. The hon. Member will want to have a moment to reflect on and applaud our work internationally and domestically on critical minerals.
Ms Ghani
So many—too many to list right now.
We also need to look at battery recycling. We want to create a regulatory space that supports the appropriate treatment of EV batteries. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is currently reviewing existing UK batteries legislation and working at pace to publish a consultation in the second half of 2023. We have also funded the Faraday battery challenge, which has enabled research into the safe and efficient segregation and repurposing of EV battery cell components. Altilium is exploring how to recover the critical metals from old EV batteries and process them effectively so that they can be reused in new batteries. Reblend aims to develop the core processes and capabilities for a UK-based automotive battery recycling industry that can recover cathode materials from production scrap and end-of-life automotive and consumer batteries for reuse in automotive batteries going forward. We are not only trying to get close to host countries and make sure that we are mining ethically, but seeing how we can ensure that we are recycling batteries.
The Minister of State at the Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire, will touch on a few issues about the zero-emission vehicle mandate, so I will quickly touch on rules of origin. To support the transition, we must not only champion innovation but address all barriers to trade with partners and markets all over the world. Our closest trading partner is of course the EU, with whom we share not only climate goals and a trajectory towards electrification, but deeply integrated supply chains. More than 50% of cars manufactured in the UK and exported are destined for EU consumers. For those reasons, I am working closely with the industry to address its concerns about planned changes to the rules of origin for electric vehicles in the trade and co-operation agreement between the UK and EU.
Since signing the deal, unforeseen and shared supply chain shocks have hit the auto industry hard. That has driven up the cost of raw materials and battery components, making it harder to meet the changing rules. That risks industry on both sides facing tariffs on electric vehicles at a crucial time in the transition to electrification. I am determined to seek a solution to this shared problem and will work with the EU to fix it for 2024. The Prime Minister has raised the issue directly with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, and I and other Ministers are engaging with our EU counterparts. We will continue to work closely with industry to address any and all blockers to the electric transition so that our great UK auto industry continues to benefit from access to global markets and UK consumers have the best possible options as we make the switch to electric vehicles.
I wanted to touch on hydrogen, but I believe I am running out of time. I was also going to reflect on success in the aerospace sector, which is very much linked to the automotive sector, but I will not because I can see that you would like me to conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. For the sake of clarity, there is plenty of time for the debate and the hon. Lady can take as long as she wants. She has so far held the floor for 32 minutes. It is not for me to judge how long she ought to speak for; it is for her to judge the mood of the House.
Ms Ghani
Well, I think the mood of the House is to be more positive about the automotive sector. I could list even more stories, but I will conclude because I believe that Opposition Members would despair about all the positivity about the automotive sector that we could talk about and reflect on.
We are home to more than 25 manufacturers that build more than 70 different vehicles in the UK, all of which are supported by 2,500 component providers and some of the world’s most skilled engineers. It is incredibly important to reflect how difficult it has been for the automotive sector globally, but of course we have huge success stories here in the UK. In 2022 we exported vehicles to more than 130 different countries and built more than three quarters of a million cars, with the onwards trajectory rising year on year. This is a healthy sector going above and beyond not only to reskill and upskill, but to meet net zero targets.
The Government are supporting the UK automotive industry, and the sector is a stalwart example of innovation and dynamism to the rest of the world. It is a great sector to get into, whether someone joins it as an apprentice or even by taking on a regular job. Of course, there is more to do. There are more opportunities to secure as we transition to zero-emission vehicles and we realise the potential of connected and autonomous mobility. We have already achieved a great deal in partnership with this fantastic sector, but we are determined to do more. We work with the sector—we do not sit in Westminster coming up with plans that we then U-turn on—and that has given the sector the confidence it needs to continue to invest in the UK. The job of those representing the sector is to praise, promote and protect, not to talk the sector down.
Several hon. Members rose—
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
I had ample cause to reflect as I listened to the Minister’s speech, replete with positivity as it was, that there are probably not all that many electric vehicles on the market that could not have been charged up to about 80% in the time the Minister was on her feet. I wondered whether she was looking to give her name to a standard unit of measurement that we might adopt for such an infusion of charge into a vehicle.
The debate is of course about an industrial strategy, or the lack thereof. While I was preparing for the debate, I had the opportunity to stumble over a few of the various iterations of industrial strategy we have had under Conservative Governments past and present. We had one called “Industrial Strategy: building a Britain fit for the future” dating from 2017, which in most respects seemed to be a pretty conventional industrial strategy in what it set out to achieve and the sectors it sought to develop to do that. That was of course replaced by something called “Build Back Better” under the unlamented premiership of the former Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, which notably promised an “open and dynamic economy” and “World-class knowledge and research”, all the while the Government seemed determined to cut us off from our largest competitors and closest market. It promised
“A stable framework for growth and strong institutions”
and boasted of “low, stable inflation”, which sounds somewhat risible after the experience of the past few months. It also promised levelling-up in terms of people and places, despite the fact that we have seen a significant lack of transparency in the allocations made through that funding stream. I suggest that those allocations will do nothing to recalibrate the grossly disproportionate imbalances of wealth and life opportunities across the nations and regions of these islands.
That takes us to the automotive industry. In many ways, it is something of a surprise that there still is one. Part of the deeply held mythology of the Conservatives in terms of the shape of the post-1979 UK is a tale they like to tell of industrial dysfunction and poor industrial relations. While that certainly took its toll on the automotive industry, I think it is the general lack of care that we have shown for manufacturing and the economic vandalism inflicted over that period as services were esteemed over manufacturing that makes the continued existence of our mass automotive sector in the UK a near miracle. That is not just as a result of the general lack of respect for manufacturing; there was also the general economic policy.
Since being elected to this place, I have always tried to talk more about the future of the North sea oil and gas fields than about their past mismanagement. Successive Governments, Conservative and Labour, were desperate to get the oil and gas pumping as quickly as they could, to reduce the crippling balance of payments deficit. The result was to push up the value of sterling beyond anything sustainable, which made manufacturing exports uncompetitive. Together with what we might call the policy of sado-monetarism that was imposed with high interest rates, manufacturing was driven down even further and unemployment was allowed to spiral later in the decade to above 3 million, leaving scars in the form of decades of lost opportunities and diminished life chances.
Although automotive production rallied later in the decade thanks to significant overseas investment, in recent years those concerns have re-emerged. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has reported that manufacturing decreased every year from 2016 to 2022. I hear what the Minister says about the positive trend of the past four months, but there is a longer-term trend over the past six years that cannot simply be wished away because of the past few weeks. In that time, a number of UK-based manufacturers have announced UK plant closures or reductions in capacity.
Greening the automotive industry will be a key element in the green transition. Personal transportation will be here for good, so it is imperative that we seize fully the industrialising of our green opportunities. We have touched on the importance of gigafactories. Batteries are heavy things by their nature, because of the materials that go into their production. There are lots of regulations on their transport, particularly cross-border. They are hazardous to transport over long distances due to their flammability. That means that there will be a strong incentive to ensure that EV manufacturing is located relatively close to where batteries are manufactured—probably in the same country and region.
For all the promises of factories, Britishvolt and the potential of gigafactories here, the UK is at risk of falling even further behind Europe in battery manufacturing. Capacity in continental Europe is expected to reach nearly 450 GWh by 2030. That is simply dwarfing the scale of the ambition, never mind the scale of delivery, that we are likely to see over the next few years. If those batteries are made in Europe or Asia, there is a simple decision that vehicle manufacturers can take about where to build the electric vehicles of the future.
All that is compounded by rules of origin. The new post-Brexit rules that come into effect in January 2024 will place 10% tariffs on exports of electric cars between the UK and the EU, if at least 45% of their value does not originate in the UK or the EU. We have heard about Stellantis, the world’s fourth largest car manufacturer, which has warned that the commitment to make electric vehicles in the UK is in serious jeopardy unless the Government can negotiate a deal to maintain existing trade rules until at least 2027, to give them a chance to adapt.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I looked at Labour’s Opposition day motion; is my hon. Friend as surprised as me that it does not mention Brexit anywhere?
Richard Thomson
I was very surprised about that. It seems to be the elephant in the room, and of this discussion. If my hon. Friend is patient, I will come to that towards the end of my speech.
Not just Stellantis makes such warnings; they have been echoed by Jaguar Land Rover and Ford, which have said that if the cost of EV manufacturing in the UK becomes uncompetitive and unsustainable, operations will close. Mike Hawes, the chief executive of the SMMT, warned at a summit recently:
“We can’t afford to have a last minute, 31 December agreement, because business needs to plan its volumes.”
Andrew Graves, a car expert at the University of Bath has warned of dire consequences of the industry, noting:
“you will start to lose the whole of the UK industry, not just Vauxhall and a couple of other manufacturers…it really makes no industrial sense to locate in the United Kingdom.”
The UK Government’s lack of action to ensure that the UK has the capacity to build batteries necessary for EU production—coupled with Brexit, as my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) rightly raised—has made it virtually impossible for domestic UK production to help us meet our targets on CO2 emissions. As Mike Hawes said:
“We urgently need an industrial strategy that creates attractive investment conditions and positions the UK as one of the best places in the world for advanced automotive manufacturing.”
That must be a priority for the UK Government, but I do not see any indication beyond warm words that it is. To quote someone else who might know what they are talking about, Andy Palmer, former chief operating officer at Nissan and chairman of battery start-ups InoBat and Ionetic, has warned that
“we are running out of time”
to get battery manufacturing up and running in the UK, and that the failure to address the issues also caused by Brexit could lead to 800,000 jobs lost in the UK—basically those associated with the car industry.
Gavin Newlands
On job losses, Madam Deputy Speaker you will remember as well as I do the impact of the closure of Linwood car plant on the town. Many would say that Linwood has still not fully recovered from that closure, when thousands of workers were put on the scrapheap. Is my hon. Friend worried about what will happen to places such as Sunderland and Ellesmere Port if the Government do not get a grip?
Richard Thomson
I share my hon. Friend’s concern. [Interruption.] There is some sedentary chuntering—if the hon. Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) gives me a chance to respond to the intervention, I will gladly give way to him if he has a substantive point to make. We can still see the industrial scars of the devastation reaped by the sudden closure of the Linwood factory in 1981. What we do not see quite so readily but is still every bit as debilitating is the impact on families who lose opportunities to participate fully in the economy. There is a very high price associated with getting this wrong, which goes far beyond simply not seeing factories on greenfield sites.
The motion speaks about a lack of a meaningful UK industrial strategy, which is a fair accusation. It calls for the need to
“urgently resolve the rules of origin changes”
that are looming in 2024. At this point, I am bound to observe that both Labour and the Conservatives make grandiloquent promises about how each would seek to harness the power of the British state to transform the economy and, with it, the lives and opportunities that follow. For the two years in every three over the last century that the Conservatives have had power, or the one year in every three that Labour has had power, neither has done that.
I mentioned the various iterations of Conservative industrial strategy; I have read Labour’s industrial strategy, which carries the signature and many photographs of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds). In many ways it is a very fine document, but when it comes to the impact of rules of origin, as with much else, a position promising to make Brexit work means absolutely nothing. I say this as gently as possible: Brexit can never be made to work, either in its current form or in any conceivable variant. As long as making Brexit work is part of the strategy, no matter which party it belongs to—Labour or the Conservatives—it will be left with a slow puncture.
Richard Thomson
I was coming to the end of my remarks, but I will give way since I mentioned the hon. Member.
Jonathan Reynolds
I understand the strength of feeling on that point and how, when we have this conversation, many will revert to that Brexit argument. However, I ask the hon. Gentleman to recognise not the political case but the economic one: we have the lowest business investment in the G7 under this Conservative Government. We want to provide a stable platform for that investment to increase in gigafactories, R&D, hydrogen and all the things we want to see, but reopening that debate—and the independence debate—is not the stable way to realise those opportunities in future. If we spend all our time doing that, we will find that other countries get to a point that we will never be able to catch up with, because we did not focus on the real opportunities at hand.
Richard Thomson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but I could not disagree more. This is not a stable platform. The Conservatives are offering us the stability of decline, and it seems that Labour is embracing that for fear of frightening its former voters in the red wall. It seeks to get them back not with honesty, but by telling people what it thinks they want to hear. It should have the intellectual honesty to recognise that the real debilitating impact on securing future growth opportunities is not from the issue he mentions, but from the barriers that have been imposed. To hear that Labour intends to further padlock them in place will depress a great many people the length and breadth not just of Scotland but, looking at opinion polling, far beyond.
I regret to say that although the motion contains many fine words—it is certainly a fine document in many respects from Labour—while it remains saddled to the Brexit the Conservatives have given us, it will not do anything to tackle the fundamental problems it diagnoses.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
I rise to speak in this debate because it is called “Supporting the Automotive Industry”. With the sense of humility that the Opposition asked for, I read the motion. It states:
“this House recognises that the automotive industry is the jewel in the crown of British manufacturing and believes it can have a bright future creating good jobs for people across the UK”.
Then it falls apart, because it states that it
“regrets that after 13 years of Conservative neglect the UK risks losing this world-class industry”.
I thought, gosh, as a matter of humility, have I missed something? What have the Opposition been talking about that I have so obviously missed? So I thought I would do a quick search on Hansard to see when the automotive industry has been talked about. The Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), has mentioned it once since 2015, and that was when he was quoting my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) confirming that the automotive sector was ready for Brexit. The shadow Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), has never uttered the words “automotive industry” in Hansard. To be fair, the shadow Secretary of State leading the debate, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), has mentioned it six times, so once every two years, which is really useful to note.
Jonathan Reynolds
I am sorry, but that is not credible. Was the hon. Gentleman in the Chamber for the urgent question when Britishvolt, the flagship automotive battery policy, fell apart? Was he there when Stellantis gave evidence to the Select Committee or when we asked two urgent questions? On both occasions, the Government objected to us using Parliament to raise those important issues, so I am afraid I do not find his position credible.
Dr Evans
That will lead me on to what I want to talk about, which is the positive side of this. Britishvolt wanted to have its headquarters in my constituency, and I met it to see what would happen. The Government protected £100 million of British taxpayers’ money. If that had gone to the wrong place, the shadow Secretary of State would have been at the Dispatch Box lambasting the Government for frittering away taxpayers’ money, so I will take no lectures on that point.
I am here to talk about the positive side of the automotive industry. In the east midlands, we are very proud of what we have to offer in the manufacturing industry. It has been through a tough time for the past 50 or 60 years, but we are making real progress. Only recently, Bosworth was noted as a net zero hotspot and described as
“connected areas with concentrated net zero activity, where businesses create jobs and add to the local hotspot’s economy”.
That means better paid jobs, better opportunities locally, better local businesses and, nationally, 840,000 jobs. Within that context, the average wage for someone in the industry is £42,600, compared with the national average of £33,000.
What does that look like in reality on the ground? That is what I want to spend a few minutes talking about. On Monday, I was at a place called Horiba MIRA. For those who do not know it, imagine the silicon valley of the automotive industry. Imagine the Google complex of anything to do with the car industry. From designing to manufacturing to testing, it all happens in this one space. It is unique in the world in what it can do. It was supported by Government from 2010 all the way through, with investment to grow as an enterprise zone, and was then allowed to flourish and attract international investment from the likes of REE, an Israeli company, bringing hundreds of millions of pounds in and bringing 300 jobs with it.
That is just a start in describing what is going in the automotive industry. I agree with those on both sides of the House who have said that this really is a revolutionary opportunity. Everyone in the world is trying to work out the best way to take it, and the best way is to support our research going on right here, including in happening in my constituency. MIRA Technology Park has over 600 high-value jobs, with specialisms in anything from autonomous car driving to battery technology, road safety and defence. Those technologies are all being tested right here in the UK. In November 2022, Horiba MIRA’s assured connected autonomous vehicle testing won the test facility of the year prize at the Vehicle Dynamics International awards, based on innovation in products, teams and technology. In June 2023, MIRA won an award from Jaguar Land Rover at its seventh annual global supplier excellence awards, demonstrating outstanding achievements in JLR’s global supply based on
“customer love unity, integrity, growth, impact.”
That all sounds very good, but when I ask my constituents whether they are aware of what is going on in our constituency, they do not really know what MIRA is. That is part of why I am so pleased to speak in this debate, because actually the UK is fantastically good in this space. It is not just about creating jobs—at MIRA, someone can go from being an apprentice all the way through to a PhD level qualification on cyber-security in cars. It is also innovating for the future to get to net zero and create energy security. It has been partnered by local enterprise partnerships, investment zones and the Midlands Engine to help drive investment, change policy and bring inward investment from the international community.
On Monday, I was very proud to welcome the president of Horiba, Mr Horiba. We saw two things: the research it is doing with Ceres on hydrogen battery technology to allow us to have battery technology in houses and vehicles; and driving simulators. If someone wants to break into the industry and is designing a car, they can now use a simulator to test how it will handle, what it will look like, and how it will feel in terms of comfort and safety. All that can be done simply in a computer-generated room, which takes out the need to make 50 to 100 prototypes and collapses it down to about one or two. But Horiba does not just have dark rooms with TV screens—there is an entire race track to test every single condition one can think of that a car might need to go through. That is right here in our country, leading the world on the international stage on how to bring in investment. I am really pleased that we can talk about that.
There is more in my constituency. We have Triumph Motorcycles. For those who do not know, Steve McQueen leapt away on a Triumph motorcycle. James Bond was seen going over the rooftops on a Triumph motorcycle. I am very proud to have Triumph Motorcycles’ headquarters in my patch, creating over 1,000 jobs. In the last three years, it has broken records for the number of bikes it has sold, which has gone up by 30% across the world. All across America and into Latin America, it is breaking into the industry and the market. That means high-end innovative jobs designed and manufactured right here in my constituency. This is the kind of thing that Members on both sides of the House are not good enough at talking up and talking about. That level of innovation and finishing makes a huge difference to my local community.
I want to mention two other businesses. Flying Spares, based in Market Bosworth, is a second-hand remodelling firm for cars such as Rolls-Royces. If someone need a part, it will ship it anywhere across the world. That is an innovative way of creating longevity and helping achieve net zero by recycling our high-end products. JJ Churchills is a fantastic advanced manufacturing aeronautical and defence agency, which employs 110 people, with high-end apprenticeships, in the middle of the countryside. This is happening right in my constituency—it is 85% rural, yet I have businesses like that.
The final jewel in the crown is Caterpillar, which last year made £59 billion worth of sales worldwide. The company, which has 1,000 people working in Desford in my constituency, is looking at making green hydrogen-fuelled electric tractors, forklift trucks, dumper trucks—you name it. I have had the pleasure of sitting there and driving Caterpillar vehicles in Arizona remotely. That is the sort of innovation that we can do. Caterpillar is sourcing its manufacturing right here in Desford, and has been for 70 years.
I mention all this to highlight some of what is going on in my small area of Leicestershire. People choose the UK because of the skillsets we have, the tech environment we create, the regulation we have in place and our stability in the global market. That is why they come here. Does that mean we should shut up shop, because we have done enough? No, of course not. It is important to make sure that there are signposts and avenues so that people know where to invest. When I speak to the likes of the Midlands Engine, which is looking for ways to drive investment in the 11 million people in its area, among the questions that come up are: where should businesses go, and how do they connect with Government?
Gavin Newlands
The hon. Member is trying manfully to paint an extraordinarily positive picture of the industry, but does he not think that the rules of origin and Brexit will have a negative impact on the automotive sector? Yes or no?
Dr Evans
If that was the case, Triumph would have struggled, but it has not.
A fundamental point has not been concentrated on enough. I am danger of straying into the territory of my Department, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, but the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), who is no longer in her place, raised the subject of infrastructure. It does not matter what we are discussing, be it wind, EVs, power generation or gigafactories; unless we sort the grid out there will be a fundamental difficulty. I believe that, broadly speaking, the UK is five years ahead in delivering on net zero. The problem is that so many companies are coming forward that they simply cannot be connected. I ask the Minister to speak to his colleagues in the Government to make sure that we deal with infrastructure. I know a report is coming out this month on the grid and how we can take it forward.
My final plea goes to Members in all parts of the House of Commons. Please come to my constituency of Bosworth and see just how marvellous our automotive industry is. From design to manufacturing to testing at the highest world standards, we have it all right here in Bosworth. You are more than welcome to join me.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
It is a privilege to speak in this debate as one of the very few fully apprenticed trained engineers in this House. Birmingham and the west midlands have been the beating heart of manufacturing for the whole country and we want that to continue.
Jaguar Land Rover is a huge company in a constituency neighbouring my own. In my constituency, I have Bracebridge Engineering Ltd, specialists in metal fabrication and sheet metal work; P&B Metal Components, which supplies the automotive and aerial industries; Coker Engineering, which offers CNC turning, milling and grinding and assembly; Dana UK Axles, supplier of car parts to JLR; and many other manufacturers. I am particularly proud to have IMI Truflo Marine, the most revered experts and the best manufacturer of valves for submarines—the only one in the world—doing fantastic work in my constituency. We also have Fracino, whose coffee machines are better than most Italian-made ones and are supplied to most of the coffee houses in this country. The company was set up by an Italian family based in my constituency and does fantastic work.
The issue I really want to talk about today is training and apprenticeships, because I also have in my constituency the Engineering Employers’ Federation training school. I opened the centre 10 years ago, since when it has grown fourfold. The Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), has visited twice to see the great work being done there. His predecessor, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), also visited. If the Minister wishes to come, I will be happy to guide her around.
The EEF training centre is a serious organisation that works very hard to produce apprenticeships. EEF members in Birmingham pay for their apprentices to go there, where they are taught to level 3 and to graduate level, too. I ask the Government to look at how to provide capital support to the EEF training school and colleges across Birmingham and the west midlands, and across the country, so that they can buy the sort of equipment they need—CNC machines, sheet metal equipment and so on—to train people properly. I have too many colleges unable to provide such training because they do not have the capital they need for equipment. To support the industry we have and to get the industry we want, we need to support apprenticeships, whether people train at EEF or other colleges in my constituency and elsewhere.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) and others have rightly raised the issue of charging points, as well as our lack of battery manufacturing capacity. I think we should also be looking at our capacity to enable connection to the grid. At the moment, those who want to supply energy—solar, wind or any other sort—to the grid face a 10-year waiting list. I know that you are shocked to hear that, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am sure that others are too. To reach the levels of charging points and battery manufacture the UK needs to support a huge increase in EV manufacturing, we have to resolve that. All of us want better-engineered vehicles to save future generations from poisonous gas emissions. To do that, people need to be able to connect to the grid to power those charging points, but they cannot do so now and will not be able to in the foreseeable future, not for 10 years. I ask the Minister to speak to whoever is in charge of that, to make the case, because this is a huge need for the whole industry.
Dr Luke Evans
The hon. Member is absolutely right. As a Parliamentary Private Secretary at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, I am acutely aware of those issues. I know that the Government put in place a Minister for the grid to look at that side of things. I believe that very soon a report will come out, which I am hopeful will answer the UK’s questions about connecting to the grid.
Mr Mahmood
I thank the hon. Member for making that point. I would like to discuss with him the new industries that want to come in and do that, but rather than a report, I want to see some action and delivery. The country cannot wait another 10 years.
Triumph used to manufacture at a factory in Small Heath in Birmingham, where my father used to work. He was a setter-operator on a lathe that produced Triumphs in my constituency. The British industry was then taken over by lots of imports from Japan—we were not able to compete—but I am glad that British industry is now able to compete. That is what I want for the future of the British engineering and manufacturing industry: for us to be able to compete in those areas so that we can show the world that we are the world leaders.
Dana in my constituency is very competitive in the motor vehicle industry. It supplies axles and other engineering components to the car industry. I want continued support for Dana and for it to have more apprentices and to be able to move forward. The key issue is skills, skills and more skills. Unless we get those skills, we will not be able to do what we want.
About six or seven years ago, Truflo did not have the capacity. It kept on members of staff until they were 70, rather than them retiring. Truflo then worked with the University of Birmingham to get apprentices on board to close the gap and get engineers to work for the company. It is the only valve company that works to the quality required to work in submarines—once a submarine is underwater, if it does not have the best equipment, it becomes very serious.
We have a great industry in the west midlands and we have great people doing great work. All I want is to ensure that in this debate we discuss the issue of engineering and manufacturing, so that we can move forward and see how we can deliver. I would like the Minister to follow through on that, and perhaps we can discuss some of the issues afterwards.
The real issue is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde said, that we need to get British industry working, and we need to work together to move forward. That can be done by the engineering and manufacturing sector. Green energy relies on the engineering and manufacturing sector. We do not want to have to import wind turbines; we can make them in the UK. We can make solar energy and hydrogen energy in the UK, and so we should. Let us enable the people in our industry to move forward on these issues. Let us support our industry and move forward.
Thank you for allowing me to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker. You know that I have another appointment very soon, so I will terminate my speech at this point. My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde has introduced a fantastic and much-needed debate so that we can discuss this important issue.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
My constituency of Llanelli has made a huge contribution to the automotive industry over many years. Industry grew up there from the very early days of smelting iron ore with local coal, to smelting copper ore imported through the town’s docks, and on to the world-famous tinplate industry, which lives on in the Tata works, which are often referred to as steelworks but which are referred to locally as the tinplate works.
Given its metal tradition, it is no wonder that motor manufacturing and engineering flourished in Llanelli and have been and continue to be very important sources of employment. As well as the larger firms, such as Marelli and Gestamp, there are myriad smaller firms, such as Excel Precision Engineering. They all produce a range of components that are part of the immensely complex supply chain that supplies the many iconic names in the UK motor industry. So many jobs in Llanelli depend on motor manufacturing and, indeed, across Wales there are some 9,000 jobs in the industry.
The complex supply chain makes it vital that the Government have a clear industrial strategy and trade policy, to give the industry the long-term certainty that it needs to invest. We are already seeing the effects of the Government’s dilly-dallying, with production down nearly 10% in 2022 and exports down 14%, which equates to a significant amount when eight out of 10 vehicles are exported. This means empty order books in the supply chain, which is very worrying for workers.
This is about not just the need to produce huge volumes of car batteries but adapting the design of many of the component parts of vehicles, with investment to gear up production lines to produce them. Furthermore, as petrol and diesel cars are phased out, some components will no longer be needed. To survive, the factories that make them will need to transition to manufacturing relevant components for the future, which is a future of electric vehicles.
Just in case the Government still have not heard the message coming loud and clear from the industry for months and months, the challenges are: high energy prices; rules of origin; the need for a long-term industrial strategy and certainty about the future; support for research and development; and the enormous challenge posed by the way other countries incentivise the industry to site new factories and new production lines in their countries.
Let us look at some of the asks. First, I implore the Government, instead of pressing ahead with the imposition of 10% tariffs from January 2024, to work together with the EU to postpone the escalation of the rules of origin requirements until 2027. We also need the Government to support research and development and the bringing of innovation to the market. For example, my constituents have a company that has developed the means to make an EV car battery 15% more efficient. That could make a huge improvement by getting more miles out of a vehicle per charge or facilitating less weighty batteries. That is the sort of enterprise that we need to support.
India is an associate member of the Horizon programme, yet staff in our universities still do not know whether their projects will be able to go ahead. They do not know whether we will continue to be part of the Horizon programme. The Government need to clarify that as soon as possible, so that we do not lose excellent researchers who will go elsewhere if they cannot further their research here in the UK.
Manufacturers have pointed out time and again that the UK has much higher energy prices than our competitor countries. This affects not only energy-intensive industry but all manufacturing. The solution is clear, and Labour has plans to implement it. We on the Labour Benches recognise the real urgency of the need to invest significantly in renewable energy. That is precisely what we would prioritise so that we could slash bills for industry and households while creating jobs—as well as, of course, tackling climate change and ensuring our energy security so that we are never again held to ransom by a foreign despot increasing gas prices. Instead, we have seen the Conservative Government ban the expansion of wind energy in England and take a half-hearted approach to lifting the ban, stalling on solar and, quite frankly, desperately underperforming on the roll-out of renewable energy over the past few years.
We then come to the huge amount of investment that is needed now to transform production from petrol and diesel vehicles to electric vehicles. The US Inflation Reduction Act is a massive game changer. The EU has responded by developing its own incentives, but we have still not had a coherent response from this Government. Time is running out, because companies are making decisions now, and once they ramp up the production of electric vehicles elsewhere, we will see workers in factories here left with nothing but finishing off the remaining orders on existing lines, with no future. If, once those decisions are made, companies do invest elsewhere, there will be no bringing them back: once they have gone, they have gone, adding to the loss of 37% of UK motor manufacturing jobs that this Conservative Government have presided over. That is a full third of the industry lost since 2010. Although I welcome any new investment, it really does need to be put into the context of what this Government have allowed us to lose.
We are all aware of the urgent need to establish battery factories here in the UK. Germany has clocked up 10 factories, while we are struggling on one. What are the Government going to do to ensure that we get the battery factories we need, and in a timely fashion? It is no good being too late when all the industry has gone elsewhere.
In addition, we need adaptation and transformation right across the industry. That is why we in the Labour party have set out our plan to implement a proper industrial strategy and establish an industrial council to provide long-term stability of policy. We have also set out our UK version of the US Inflation Reduction Act: our green prosperity plan. Our national wealth fund will, when needed, provide the finance to invest in the transformation of our automotive industry to produce EVs, which are an important part of our plans to get to net zero. We will boost UK battery capacity with the part-financing of eight additional gigafactories and accelerate the roll-out of charging points to give providers confidence to charge their EVs.
To reiterate, it is not simply the Labour party but the whole industry that is very concerned that we are not seeing a clear industrial strategy or the necessary moves to build battery factories by incentivising firms to continue putting their production here, by bringing down energy prices and by ensuring that we have a thriving motor manufacturing industry for the future.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), who is right to talk about the importance of innovation and enterprise in this sector.
This is an important debate, which is why it is disappointing that there are now more Government Parliamentary Private Secretaries in the Chamber than there have been Conservative speakers in this debate. The public and workers will question why the Tories think so little of the automotive sector and will draw their own conclusions.
I am pleased that parliamentary time has been given today to focus on the automotive industry, which has a long and proud history in the UK. As we have already heard, from Sunderland to Coventry, Ellesmere Port and Luton, industrial cities and towns across the country have been hallmarks of manufacturing and quality production in our automotive sector for decades.
My constituents in Luton North have a particular interest in this debate. In a moment I will address the recent events at the SKF plant at Sundon Park in my constituency, but first I would like to discuss another automotive crisis facing the Luton community. Luton’s Vauxhall plant is based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins). She is a champion for the automotive sector, and I wish the hon. Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) had looked up how many times she has mentioned the automotive sector and industry, as he would have reached double digits for sure.
Vauxhall has been a proud industrial landmark of our town since 1905. The plant played a major part in the war effort during the 1940s, producing the Churchill tank and becoming a centre for repairing battle-damaged tanks. Thousands of Bedford lorries were turned out at Kimpton Road, including the QL, which was the company’s first four-wheel drive vehicle and a key feature of our country’s military fleet.
If we fast forward to the present day, we see that the Luton Vauxhall plant employs around 1,500 people from across our town and has been essential to creating skilled, unionised local jobs, running apprenticeship schemes for young people and fostering local talent, including across supply chains and other local businesses. The plant now specialises in producing vans, around 70% of which are exported to mainland Europe. I am so pleased to have had the pleasure of visiting the plant with my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South to meet the workers, and we saw how proud they are of what they turn out. Long may it continue, in the face of the challenge from this Tory Government.
Businesses such as Vauxhall not only provide jobs to people in Luton North, they are also intrinsic to our identity as a town. Generations have worked there, known each other and grown together. Automation changed the face and size of Britain’s automotive sector but, as quickly as we saw it rise, we are now sadly seeing it decline.
Thirteen years of Tory chaos have turbo-charged the closure of factories and the destruction of workers’ livelihoods. The Conservatives’ disastrous handling of Brexit negotiations, the explosion of the economy by the previous Conservative Prime Minister and the long abandonment of any semblance of an industrial strategy are just a few of many contributing factors.
Locally, even in the face of the Government’s evolving mess, we have seen a committed, quality automotive sector and supply chain in Luton, but it is now hanging by a thread. The Minister talked about optimism, but this is the reality facing thousands of workers across the country. Other jobs linked to manufacturing, the automotive industry and the supply chain are similarly under threat.
SKF is a major employer in my constituency. SKF is a ball bearing manufacturing plant, formerly closely tied to Volvo. SKF, like Vauxhall, has been a proud feature of Luton for more than 100 years, and it is another prime example of how this Government are sitting on their hands while they oversee the slow, managed decline of manufacturing in this country.
Last month, SKF announced its plan to close the Luton plant and move production to Poznan in Poland by the end of 2024. This is a devastating blow to our town and our local economy, and it could see the loss of up to 300 jobs. I went to meet workers and Unite union reps at SKF, and they are all deeply concerned about the sudden closure. They told me that, throughout covid, they were considered key workers. They operated and worked throughout, putting their safety behind production, for the good of the company and for the good of the economy.
Generations have worked at SKF in Sundon Park, and thousands have given their best working days to that business, only for SKF’s board members to turn their back on them and for this Government to turn their back on manufacturing workers again. Seriously, what do the Government want? A land of Amazons? A blanket of windowless storage warehouses, where people compete and break themselves to meet unrealistic and ever-increasing pick rates? That is what they are turning our country into.
I am pleased the Minister was keen to take up invites to visit Members’ constituencies, so will she please commit to meeting me and workers at SKF who face losing their jobs to see how we can save SKF’s future in Luton?
Ms Ghani
I recently had a meeting with the hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) and Stellantis, and I am always open to meeting colleagues on both sides of the Chamber. Of course I will meet the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), those employees and Unite the union.
Sarah Owen
I thank the Minister for giving that commitment. It will mean a lot to the workers of SKF and to the constituency and the wider economy.
Long-standing businesses with ties to our constituencies and our constituents are being forced to shut up shop and relocate elsewhere because the lack of Government support has left them with little choice. The lack of an industrial strategy has been a major factor in the lack of certainty over not just the last few years but, sadly, over the last 13 years.
There are positive examples of companies in the industry refusing to give up their UK-based factories and the workers who work in them. Next door to SKF in my constituency sits Comline, an auto parts business. When I visited Comline in Sundon Park, I was impressed by its innovation in dealing with the challenges thrown at it from all angles. It has a flourishing business that values its staff, and it has established strong trade links with offices abroad, which has perhaps guaranteed its continued success. Although I am glad that that has given the company security, it is deplorable that the Government have made international trade so complex that Comline has found it easier to trade with countries thousands of miles away than to trade with its offices in Northern Ireland.
Despite our proud history, I remain deeply concerned that our automotive industry has been consistently let down, with the industry’s concerns ignored by this Government. The Government have been warned by representative bodies and businesses for months, even years, of the cliff edge facing the UK automotive industry due to the combination of changes to the rules of origin and a lack of battery-making capacity in the UK.
The collapse of Britishvolt in January 2023, having planned to build a £3.8 billion gigafactory in Blyth, Northumberland, is a stark reminder of these failures and is undoubtedly a disaster for the UK car industry. Even more worrying is the wider picture. Even if Britishvolt were going ahead, we would be far short of where we need to be to continue making cars in this country. The Faraday Institution says we need 10 gigafactories by 2040 to sustain our automotive sector. Without domestic batteries, we will have no domestic automotive industry at all.
While this Government dither on their investment strategy, a Labour Government would commit to rapidly scaling up UK battery-making capacity by part-financing eight additional gigafactories to create 80,000 jobs and power 2 million electric vehicles. New gigafactories will also allow the UK’s automotive sector to source components locally and avoid tariffs from rules of origin agreements.
The Stellantis three—my hon. Friends the Members for Luton South and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and me—are sitting together, In May 2023, the car maker Stellantis, which owns Vauxhall, Peugeot, Citroën and Fiat, issued warnings that it may have to close UK factories if the Government do not renegotiate their Brexit deal. Under the current deal, UK car makers could face 10% tariffs on exports to the EU from next year due to rules of origin on where parts are sourced. Unfortunately, it is not us but business—companies such as Stellantis—that must be convinced that the Government will sort this out. Other car manufacturing giants and competitors, including Ford and Jaguar Land Rover, have joined Stellantis to warn that the transition to electric vehicles will be affected unless the UK and the EU delay the strict rules of origin that are due to start next year and could add tariffs on car exports.
This is not a new argument that I have had. Before entering this House in 2019, I was a trade union officer with GMB. I declare now that I am also a proud member of it, which will not surprise anybody. Alongside the late Jack Dromey, who was a champion for the automotive industry—I hope everybody from across the House could agree on that—we took workers from Toyota, AstraZeneca, the whisky-making industry in Scotland and the Stoke potteries to meet the then Cabinet Secretary, now the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. I can see you looking at me, Madam Deputy Speaker, so let me say that I have informed him that I was going to mention him in the Chamber. When we went to speak to him with this delegation of manufacturing workers, every single one of us questioned what was going to happen when the rules of origin changes kicked in. He shrugged his shoulders, arrogantly saying, “This is going to be worked out.” Yet here we are, in 2023, many years later, and all those industries and workers are still left without a proper answer.
While the EU is pumping billions into manufacturing as part of its green industrial revolution plan, and the US is investing with the Inflation Reduction Act, our automotive industry is still being left behind. The UK lags behind the rest of the world in terms of global automotive manufacturing relative to GDP, ranking sixth in Europe and 17th in the world last year. The Minister talks about optimism, which is of course welcome, but that is the reality facing workers and the sector. I ask the Government to get real on this, because blind optimism does not pay the bills. It does not create certainty for an industry and it certainly does not make car manufacturers such as Stellantis think that this Government are serious about the automotive sector.
That means my constituency is missing out on potential businesses starting and growing in Luton North, and local people who are keen to work in those industries are being failed. This Government are not only preventing new British jobs from materialising, but diminishing existing jobs before our eyes. As I said, we are facing a possible 270-plus job losses at the SKF factory. That is coming at the same time as there are threats to close ticket offices, including at Leagrave station. We cannot take more job losses in Luton North. My constituents are having the jobs they have done diligently for generations stripped from them, in the automotive sector, in rail and in all manner of business breakdowns.
It is clear that this Government’s sticking-plaster approach cannot continue. Labour has stated time and again that securing an agreement with the European Union to make Brexit work for the automotive industry is critical to ensuring its survival. The knock-on effects of the Government’s approach are being felt across the manufacturing industry more widely. Staggering energy costs, a lack of an industrial strategy and investment, and a more competitive European market mean that manufacturing across our country could soon cease to exist in its entirety. Clearly, our automotive industry needs a Government that will fight to support it to be competitive in the global market. Labour will deliver a modern industrial strategy to bring investment and jobs to industrial heartlands. That will create an employment revival where there has been years of Conservative depression, because on these Benches we are about creating strong jobs with a secure future, not stripping them away.
Under Labour leadership, battery-making capacity in the UK would boom. We would support the creation of eight new gigafactories, with this all laid out and costed in our green prosperity plan. The new factories would allow for our home-grown automotive businesses to source their auto parts within the UK. That would be huge for businesses such as Comline in Sundon Park. Crucially, with these new gigafactories, we would introduce about 80,000 new British jobs. I know how much that would mean to my constituents, from youngsters getting apprenticeships to older people knowing they do not need to worry about redundancy before retirement. With eight new gigafactories, we would also power 2 million electric vehicles, which is so crucial for working towards our commitment to net zero. All of that would bring in an additional £30 billion to our economy. It sounds like a good deal to me.
We are committed to building strong economic foundations that businesses need to succeed, including through reforms to the apprenticeship levy and business rates to give firms flexibility where they need it, and making the UK a clean energy superpower by 2030 with net zero carbon electricity, lowering electricity costs for the car industry. That is the leadership and the strategy that the automotive industry has been crying out for, and that is what a Labour Government would provide.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
It is an absolute pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), a good friend who spoke so passionately about the length of time Luton has been associated with Vauxhall Motors—I appreciate the Minister nodding at that. As we have heard, the automotive industry is critical to the UK’s economy; it is a jewel in the crown of British manufacturing. I agree with the comments made by our Front Benchers about the importance of maintaining a good manufacturing sector in our country and the associated good, skilled jobs.
In Luton, we are proud of our automotive heritage. For once, let me carry on a football analogy by saying that we are also proud of our premier league football team. Generations of families have worked at the Vauxhall plant, making many well-known family cars and, more recently, medium-sized vans, based on the Vauxhall Vivaro. I have seen the heritage displayed in all sorts of ways. When I visited Someries Junior School recently, it had the full history of Vauxhall set out in a montage, where the cars had been drawn on and the history from 1905 was talked about. Similarly, when I have been out talking to the people of Mid Bedfordshire, I knocked on the door of someone who works at Vauxhall and is the daughter of one of the Unite representatives.
I was pleased to meet the Minister recently to talk about the importance of the automotive sector to Luton and the need for a long-term strategy to safeguard the industry and good jobs in our town. Having joined this place in 2019, I first raised the issue of the need for a strategy specifically to support the automotive industry some three years ago, in July 2020. The Minister has seen me raise many an automotive issue. If the hon. Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) was here, I could assure him of how many times I have raised the issues of semiconductors, electric vehicle batteries, gigafactories, the supply chain, rules of origin and charging infrastructure. There is a genuine interest here about the importance of all of it to our economy.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I am hesitant to interrupt, because I know of my hon. Friend’s expertise in this area. However, may I ask her: are the Government giving enough help for the future of our industry? Many believe that hydrogen power is coming fast, and that its impact might be similar to what the invention of the railways meant for the canals. Are the Government giving enough hope and resources to the industry to look forward to hydrogen power as well as battery power?
Rachel Hopkins
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Obviously, the Opposition are hosting this debate to get support for the automotive sector, and his question about whether the Government are giving sufficient support to hydrogen is perhaps one for them. I want to make sure that I have my points on the record about the future of electric vehicles at the Vauxhall plant.
Three years on, I am still calling for that long-term plan from the Government. Despite the Minister reciting many a meeting, visit and champion of X, Y and Z, where is the plan that we can all look up to and see how it is going to support our sector? We have seen this Conservative Government preside over a 37% fall in British motor manufacturing since they came into office in 2010. Indeed, eight out of 10 cars produced in the UK are exported, yet exports of cars manufactured in the UK fell by 14% in 2022. Government inaction, which we are debating today, threatens the future of the automotive industry and of Vauxhall in Luton, particularly the future of its electric vehicles.
The UK is heavily reliant on battery technology from Asia. While the UK currently falls under the threshold of rules of origin quotas, the ratcheting up from the beginning of next year poses a risk to the UK automotive industry. As we have heard, Stellantis, the owner of Vauxhall, told the Business and Trade Committee inquiry into the supply of batteries for EV manufacturing in the UK:
“There will not be sufficient battery production supplies in the UK or in Europe by 2025 and 2030”
to meet the rules of origin requirements.
Rather than working with the EU to suspend a ratcheting up in rules of origin requirements until 2027, I am concerned that we will see too little, too late from the Government, and the Conservatives will oversee the imposition of 10% tariffs from 1 January next year. Just for nuance, those tariffs are 10% to 22% for electric vans, which particularly impacts the Vauxhall plant in Luton South.
Overall, these tariffs would hinder the UK’s struggling automotive sector, pass on yet more cost to British people, already struggling with a cost of living crisis made in Downing Street, and would make the green transition unnecessarily unaffordable for millions across the country.
Until we have sufficient domestic battery production, our industry will be at a major competitive disadvantage, in particular against Asian imports, specifically from South Korea, Japan and China. The reality is that if the cost of EV manufacturing in the UK becomes uncompetitive and unsustainable, the future of domestic operations will be at risk. Decisions will be made by producers to move production elsewhere, if there is no confidence in the UK Government’s desire to facilitate a sustainable automotive and electric vehicle market, a point well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), particularly as British businesses are also facing the highest energy costs in Europe.
It is also important that the Government recognise the innovation and technological advancements posed by the wider industry. Since joining the all-party motor group, I have learned a lot about how motorsport in the UK—the best in the world, with the greatest engineering and tech teams—influences the ordinary automotive sector. For many years, we have seen a cycle where cutting-edge motorsport develops innovative automotive solutions and efficiencies that the automotive sector later adopts for the wider market.
We have heard about steps being taken on sustainable fuels, but much more has been linked to the huge strides in technology relating to software. It is right to remember how the motorsport industry pivoted brilliantly during the pandemic to support the ventilator challenge. I raise this because if the Government sit back and allow the demise of our automotive industry, we will risk losing the world-class engineers, tech experts and motorsport companies, as they will look elsewhere for an environment that is more conducive to the sport. That would be detrimental, not only to the entertainment side of motorsport, but as a significant contributor to our economy and society.
As we have heard, Labour has an excellent plan to turbocharge electric vehicle manufacturing. In government, we will prioritise an agreement with the European Union to ensure that manufacturers have time to prepare to meet rules of origin requirements. We are committed to rapidly scaling up UK battery making capacity, by part-financing eight additional gigafactories, creating 80,000 jobs, powering 2 million electric vehicles and adding £30 billion to the UK economy.
Labour will accelerate the roll-out of charging points and give confidence to motorists to make the switch, with binding targets for electric vehicle chargers. Our plan includes measures to make the UK a clean energy superpower by 2030, with net zero carbon electricity, lowering electricity costs for the UK car industry. I look forward to supporting Labour’s business team to make this a reality, so that the young people in Luton South see a positive future ahead of them, with good, skilled jobs for the long term.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
It should come as no surprise to anyone that since the Conservative Government took power in 2010, the country’s automotive industry has been failed by a lack of investment or any long-term strategy. Since 2010, as set out by other speakers in the debate, we have experienced a 37% decline in British motor manufacturing. That is not insignificant and it is set to continue.
I am lucky enough to be a member of the Business and Trade Committee. A couple of months ago, I asked experts, on a panel discussing the UK’s industrial strategy, how the UK is placed to take advantage of the electric car industry, and about the levels of investment on offer to support companies settling in the UK and creating jobs here, compared with those in the US and across Europe. Put simply, their response was startling but it was absolutely correct. The response from each industry expert was that right now there is no comparison between what is on offer with the Inflation Reduction Act in the US and what is on offer in Europe. That is unfortunate, but that is the reality of where we are at this moment in time.
Looking at the statistics regarding this extremely important debate, the Conservatives have presided over a 37% decline in British motor manufacturing since 2010. There are 780,000 people employed across the UK automotive sector, with 182,000 of those directly employed in manufacturing. Annual UK car production fell by 9.8% in 2022, from 859,000 units to 775,014 units. The UK lags behind the rest of the world in terms of global automotive manufacturing relative to GDP, ranking sixth in Europe and 17th in the world in 2022. Eight in every 10 cars produced in the UK are exported, yet exports of cars manufactured in the UK fell by 14% in 2022. The EU is by far the largest export market for UK-produced vehicles—57.6% of vehicles produced in the UK are exported to the EU.
It is now three years since a gigafactory in my constituency of Wansbeck was proposed, and we have been hoping for the development of Britishvolt at Cambois. In the run-up to Christmas, at a time when people are wondering if they are going to get additional socks, Old Spice, Blue Stratos or new boxer shorts, I got a great surprise, finally. In December 2020, I got a call from a businessman who informed me that he was to develop a big company called Britishvolt, only two miles from where I live. It was as if all my Christmases had come at once: 8,000 much-needed jobs in an area like Wansbeck and like south-east Northumberland, covering different skills. They were secure, unionised jobs that were set out in the telephone conversation I had in December 2020, just prior to Christmas. We were going to get a big gigafactory. It was heralded at the time by Ministers as a perfect example of levelling up. It was heralded by the then Prime Minister as a project that would boost the production of electric vehicles in the UK, while levelling up opportunity and bringing thousands of highly skilled jobs to communities in our industrial heartlands. However, Ministers were not so keen to be attached to it when Britishvolt went into liquidation after failing to get the funds that it needed to continue. That included the money that the disgraced former Prime Minister told me from that Dispatch Box was “in the post”. I asked him at PMQs when BritishVolt would be receiving the £100 million from the automotive transformation fund. He rose, clenching his fists anxiously, and said that the cheque was in the post. I support the CWU and I support the strikes at the Royal Mail, but I am afraid that that cheque never arrived. I do not blame the strikes for that, although others may wish to do so.
That money never ever arrived for Britishvolt. I listened to a Member earlier who said that, had that money been paid to a community such as mine, it would have been frittered away. Let me tell Members: people in my community deserve as much investment in jobs than anywhere else in this country—whether it be a constituency led by the Conservatives or by the Labour party. My constituency deserves to be cared for the same as anybody else. If £100 million is being invested in one constituency, it is seen as fantastic; it should not be seen as being frittered away in a constituency such as mine. It is an insult to everyone in the south-east of Northumberland, and obviously to my patch.
The current situation, as the Minister knows, is that the Britishvolt project was bought by an Australian company, Recharge Industries, and it has given us a glimmer of hope. I asked the Minister a few weeks ago in Question Time whether we could meet up to discuss what support the Government could give to Recharge Industries. She agreed to meet, but we have not yet had the opportunity to do so, so I gently nudge her and say that I would welcome that discussion, because we need that gigafactory. Every industry expert says that we have the best site in Europe for a gigafactory. The only way that it will happen is if we get the support that we need from the Government. So far, it does not look as if that will happen. As I have said before, it would create 8,000 jobs: 6,000 jobs in the supply chain and 2,000 at the factory.
Matt Western
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and ask him to excuse me for having to leave the Chamber temporarily. The point he is making is important. I was in his area earlier this year and saw for myself the new National Grid facility. With its interconnectors and the 3% of UK electricity potential coming ashore from Norway, it is, I agree, the perfect site for a gigafactory—alongside Coventry, of course.
Ian Lavery
I will not get into the football analogies that have been drawn on today. I am pleased that my hon. Friend has visited my constituency and seen for himself the potential that Energy Central has in Northumberland. Whether it is the two interconnectors or the Catapult facility in Blyth for renewable energy, we have a lot going on in the Blyth estuary region and, of course, in Wansbeck.
We need to give people some hope. We need to give my constituents the same sort of hope that everybody else is getting. I have sat patiently listening to Members who have lots of jobs in their constituencies. They are very happy with those jobs and the fact that things could not be any brighter. The hon. Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) said, “Come and have a look at Bosworth. It is fantastic.” I say to him, “Come and have a look at Wansbeck and see how that stands as compared with Bosworth.” I am delighted for the people of Bosworth, but he should be coming to my constituency to see the difference. It is just not fair.
Dr Evans
When it comes to the automotive industry, we should be talking about the whole of the UK. The hon. Gentleman speaks passionately about the site of the gigafactory. I know it well, because Britishvolt spoke to me about the site and what it has to deliver. I am more than happy to support him and his constituents, because this is about what the UK can offer to the rest of the world. The automotive industry here is a leader in doing that, so I will champion that, because it happens to be in my constituency. I would love to see it thrive in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, too, so that we have jobs and prosperity across the UK.
Ian Lavery
I thank the hon. Gentleman, but he should come and have a look. He can drive his electric vehicle up the road and call in to see the obvious difference between my constituency and his.
Sarah Owen
This is indeed a UK-wide issue in that if one of us succeeds in the sector, then we all succeed. However, we are talking about not just the jobs of the future that need to be created and maintained, but, unfortunately, the jobs now that need to be saved. There are just not the equivalent jobs for people to go to. Is this not a serious problem for the sector? It is not just about future jobs, but about saving the jobs now.
Ian Lavery
That is an excellent point. The reality is that we have lost 37% of production in 13 years. If there is not a halt to that and if there is not the investment that is required to maintain and then increase employment, we will see a total loss of the automotive industry in this country. It is as simple as that. Members have mentioned the different new rules coming into place, the state of origin rules and issues such as that. It is getting more and more difficult to maintain and increase what we have, on top of a 37% decline. The reality is that we do not have anything in place to make that transformation from where we are now to where we need to be. We need to have, I think, nine new gigafactories. We have one. In fact, it is half a gigafactory. That is just not good enough. We keep being told by the Conservatives that they are on the case, that the development is coming, and that they will be developing it—whether it be in Coventry, in the midlands or wherever; hopefully, the next one will be in my constituency—but it is not right to continue saying that we are on track. We are not on track. There needs to be some investment. We need the readies. We will not get people rolling up to different areas saying that they will build a gigafactory unless they have support from the Government.
We should look at the support that other countries have given to their businesses in grants and loans: CATL in Germany received a loan of €750 million, 22.8% of the total build cost; Northvolt in Sweden got €505 million, 17.1% of the build cost; GM in North America got $2.5 billion; Stellantis $1 billion; Tesla $1.3 billion; and Ford $884 million. Britishvolt, which had so much promise, were promised £100 million, 2.3% of the build cost. That was heavily caveated to the point where the company never had a penny of Government support.
We should take a look at the stats. What Labour is suggesting would provide a fantastic opportunity. It needs to be grasped. Regions up and down the country will benefit greatly as a result of what has already been described as turbocharging electric vehicle manufacturing. There could be £30 billion-worth of investment in the regions. We cannot turn that down, but we have to get on with it, which is why I hope that once the election comes and we get elected as the next Government this can be introduced without delay. It will make a huge difference to areas such as the north-east, which will have 13,000 jobs in vehicle manufacturing. Its share of the £30 billion in economic benefits from the Labour plans will be £2.45 billion. Areas such as the west midlands will have 57,000 such jobs, and it will receive £10.76 billion in its share of the investment. The list goes on. The north-west will have 22,000 jobs in vehicle manufacturing and £4.13 billion-worth of investment.
That Labour party turbocharging of electric vehicles is so important and so exciting, but my constituency has been absolutely battered. It has been bruised by the deindustrialisation programme of past Conservative Governments. The lack of an industrial strategy from the Government is still holding my area back significantly. Levelling up means an active state willing actively to protect and invest in the interests of people in held-back areas such as my constituency of Wansbeck. The area where the site would have been developed lies in Cambois, a coastal area in the parish of East Bedlington. Bedlington and Wansbeck—not in Blyth. Britishvolt was never in Blyth. A number of people have mentioned that today, and I have already mentioned it to the Minister a few times. Britishvolt was not in Blyth; that is a Conservative seat next door. Britishvolt is in Wansbeck—my patch. I thought that I would make that point once again, because it appears that very few people listen to what has been said.
We have a proud history in the industrial revolution. It is a coal area. My patch was coal town. We were built on coal. We were part of the great industrial revolution, not only extracting the coal that powered it, but being the birthplace of wrought iron rails in the Bedlington Ironworks, which triggered the railway age. Why should that industrial heritage not be continued at the site of what could be the heart of the green industrial revolution—the transport industrial revolution—simply because once again the Government have failed to deliver for the people of Wansbeck and south-east Northumberland? We need to do a lot better for my constituents.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I am grateful for the Speaker’s agreement, and that of the Whips, to my speaking in today’s debate.
If anybody does not know it yet, Ellesmere Port, which I am proud to represent, is synonymous with Vauxhall Motors. I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Luton North (Sarah Owen) and for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) will say that Luton is equally synonymous. I put on the record my gratitude for their support, and that of their predecessors, when we faced similar battles to keep our plants open. We have heard already that we all have to succeed if the UK car industry is to succeed. I will show my solidarity with them to keep this important sector going. They will recognise the pride that we all have in being such a major part of the UK car sector.
Generations of my constituents, though not as many generations as those of my hon. Friends the Members for Luton North and for Luton South, have worked in the Vauxhall Motors plant since it first opened in around 1960. When I drive away from my house in my constituency in my Vauxhall Astra, I go past many houses that have Vauxhall workers in them, or Vauxhall pensioners, or people who have had family and friends who work at Vauxhall. That is just before I get to the end of my street. It is a long street, but I think that it is symbolic of the fact that every part and corner of my town has a link to the factory. Indeed, as the town grew the plant grew, from the 1960s onwards. Although it does not employ anything like the 12,000 people that it did at its height, it is still a substantial employer in the town. That of course does not take into account the many people employed in the supply chain and associated industries; neither does it account for the great potential that we have for greater numbers if the new van, which is coming soon, proves to be the success that we hope that it will be.
The parent company may now be called Stellantis, and my hon. Friends the Members for Luton North and for Luton South and I are now “the Stellantis three”, but Vauxhall Motors is the name that gives us pride in our community. It is something that we all recognise. The jobs that Vauxhall Motors, or Stellantis, provides are the sort that I want our future success to be built on: highly skilled, unionised, permanent jobs, manufacturing something that is a matter of national and local pride. When the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), spoke about his pride in the Nissan plant in Sunderland, those words really resonated with me. Those of us who have big local manufacturers take great pride in what they have done for our communities, and indeed the wider economy.
As you would expect, Madam Deputy Speaker, the plant has regular fights for survival, and I am proud that alongside many others I have played my part to ensure that it is still there, but it does not get any easier. Every five years or so, when the next model is discussed, plants across Europe are effectively pitted against each other to bid for the next job. The productivity of the local workforce and their co-operation with Unite the union, which for the record I am a proud member of, work extremely well. They show tremendous leadership to work with management. In the past, that has put us in the best possible position to secure future work. The partnership between the trade union and management is a real exemplar of how employee relations can be conducted for the benefit of everyone.
The local authority, and indeed central Government, have played their part too, both in recent years and in the previous decade, with initiatives such as the car scrappage scheme and the Automotive Council, which helps not just Vauxhall Motors but the entire sector more generally. Before the new van rolls off the production line for the first time, which I hope will be shortly, the challenge to secure the next model has already begun. That challenge has many similarities with the obstacles that the entire sector needs to overcome, as we have heard about.
I am confident that our workers and management locally will be able to show that they are competitive compared with other plants, but will that be enough if they face a 10% surcharge on their exported products, as it looks as if they may be facing from next year? I think that we all know that expecting any business to remain competitive if it has an additional 10% cost added to it is unrealistic. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South mentioned, for vans the tariff could go up to 22%. The clear warning signs are there that we need to do something dramatic to avoid that cliff edge.
There are six months to go before we get to that point, which shows that we are in the danger zone. As has been mentioned, the Government had years to address this issue. They either need to renegotiate the deal to get rid of the tariffs or get enough battery plants on the ground so that tariffs do not matter any more. Unfortunately, neither of those things has happened. When the EU is pumping billions into manufacturing as part of its green industrial plan, and the US is investing trillions as part of the Inflation Reduction Act, the inaction in the UK becomes negligence. If we want the UK to be a clean energy superpower by 2030, and to avoid falling off a cliff edge before then, we need a much more interventionist Government who will help the automotive sector to make this important transition. Gigafactories, charging infrastructure and reshoring the supply chain will not happen by magic, especially when the US and EU are actively pursuing that for their own industries.
Look at the evidence given to the Business and Trade Committee about the challenges that we face. These are some of the quotes given to the Committee on the matter recently:
“At the moment, the UK does not have a strategy. It does not have a runner in this race…Capital is far more incentivised to go to the US.”
Right now there is no comparison with what is on offer with the Inflation Reduction Act, and what is on offer in Europe. That is unfortunate, but it is the reality of where we are. The problem is that when other nations are putting in massive amounts, not putting in that level of cash makes us uncompetitive. It is difficult for shareholders to make a positive decision if we are not putting the same amounts on the table. That is what the industry has been very clearly telling us.
We know, as we have heard already, that we need at least eight or possibly nine gigafactories to make the UK car industry viable, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) said, we may have half a gigafactory coming on stream, or maybe two at best, if we are lucky. He told us in some detail about the struggles to get that gigafactory up and running in his constituency, and that should tell us that this needs full attention. I know my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) has been actively campaigning to get a gigafactory site in his constituency capable of serving not only Vauxhall Motors but probably also JLR and some other factories in the region.
I am pleased to say that our request to meet the Minister was granted, just before this debate in fact—what a great coincidence that was—because we think there needs to be recognition that there is a lot of chicken and egg in this situation. If we do not have the gigafactories, we will not have the car plants; if we do not have the car plants, we will not have the gigafactories. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North said, we all have to succeed in this. It cannot be just one or two plants. For the future to work in this sector, we all have to succeed.
Let us get more of these gigafactories up and running, with spades on the ground in the next 12 months, before we get the point where the sector decides that there just will not be the capacity to move forward with a viable UK car industry. As we know from many other industries, once it is gone, it is gone. As the Faraday Institution has said, we need a “timely and co-ordinated effort” to attract more gigafactories to the UK. We need to develop a resilient, sustainable and efficient supply chain and build up skills capabilities. That takes leadership, and it is about time we saw some from the Government.
We definitely need a strategy, and one that is interventionist in its outlook. When people decry the £28 billion a year that my party is committed to spending on greening the economy, I have to say to them, just look at what a fraction of that could do for the car industry. I believe it could be money well spent.
However, we can also do other things better. We need to make better use of the taxpayer pound that we already spend, and the most cursory look around the fleets in most other countries shows that we stand almost alone in failing to recognise the importance of social value as part of our procurement process. In France, the police drive Citroëns, Renaults and Peugeots produced in French factories. In Germany, they drive Mercedes, BMWs and Volkswagens. In Spain they drive Seat vehicles; in Sweden, it is Saabs and Volvos and in Italy they drive Alfa Romeos, Fiats and even sometimes Lamborghinis.
All those countries are governed by the same directive as we used to be, yet they all seem to be able to procure vehicles in the way that supports their own industry. We are no longer part of the EU, so we have no excuse now, and I ask myself what is stopping us being able to make use of public sector procurement powers to support our automotive sector. I ask myself why police officers in Cheshire are using vehicles made thousands of miles away when they could be in vehicles made just down the road at Vauxhall Motors. It does not have to be that way. The automotive sector has had more than its fair share of challenges due to Brexit, as we have heard, but let us use some of those so-called new-found freedoms to bring us some benefits as well.
A proper strategy on charging points is needed, but, just as with the overall industrial strategy, there is a mistaken belief that things should just be left to the market. In consumers’ minds there is now hesitancy about moving over to EVs and making a huge financial commitment at a time of cost of living crisis. The initial cost and inconvenience of running an electric vehicle is at the forefront of their considerations. Brand-new electric vehicles are far more expensive than second-hand traditional vehicles and, while electric vehicles are becoming a greater proportion of new sales, I am concerned that we will face a natural ceiling on them before too long.
As technologies progress and electric vehicles become more numerous on the roads, focus has turned to the availability and practicality of owning one. Concerns have arisen around access to and the cost of on-street charging. Given that around one third of UK homes do not have access to off-street parking, whether a driveway or a garage, we need a more effective way to public charging before we reach 2030. There is also a profound unfairness in the fact that those whose properties lack driveways pay four times as much in VAT as those who can use domestic supplies of electricity.
The Government’s commitment to building 300,000 new charging points is to be welcomed, but between 2017 and 2022 only 1,603 were installed, and almost 75% of those were located in the west midlands, the south-east and London. The north-west received only 0.7% of the total installed. London now possesses 100% of the charging points required by 2025, yet every other region in the country is lacking. According to analysis by Transport & Environment, most of the UK’s regions possess less than 50% of the estimated charging capacity required by 2025. In regions such as my own in the north-west, the north-east, the south-west and Northern Ireland, it is only around 30% of the capacity required. My local authority, Cheshire West and Chester, has only 28% of the chargers required by 2025—a stark comparison with wealthy London boroughs such as Westminster, which already has 358% of the chargers it needs.
That is not a good record for a Government who stood on a platform of levelling up the country—there appears to be no strategy to deal with those regional disparities. I am not sure that the Government even recognise that they exist. There is a huge opportunity for so-called “left behind” towns to receive some central investment for major charging points, so that those who cannot access private sources of electricity can come in to their town centre, charge their car and rejuvenate their town centre at the same time. There is a real opportunity there, but it will not happen by chance; it needs Government action.
When the Government’s report on charging infrastructure acknowledges that the process is arduous, we have to ask what they are going to do to change it. The report states:
“Installing and operating chargepoints requires several parties across the energy sector, local government and the transport sector to work together effectively.”
But where does the responsibility for that ultimately lie? That is the endgame for the whole automotive sector.
Someone has to step up to the plate and say, “Yes, this jewel in the crown of our manufacturing sector is going to be supported and supported properly, because we recognise that for our constituents, for our economy and for our environment, the car industry in the UK will only survive if there is the political will, backed up by a properly funded strategy, to make sure that it actually happens.” If the Conservative party will not do that, it should make way for one that will.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
It is an honour to follow the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders). As someone who is passionate about this industry, I would say that there is huge support for talking up the sector on the Opposition side of the Chamber, as we have heard in the contributions of colleagues over the last couple of hours.
When I think of the sector’s contribution to UK plc, I think about the alloy wheels being made in Fort William, the Ferodo brakes being made in Chapel-en-le-Frith and the panels being beaten out in various parts of the country. I think about the likes of the factory just around the corner from where I live that makes the gearbox for the Bugatti Veyron, no less. Up and down this country we have some of the finest companies and the finest engineers making products, contributing to the supply chain and to the original equipment manufacturers that produce vehicles of all sorts, from motorbikes to diggers.
I also pay tribute to a great old friend of mine who we all remember, Jack Dromey, who called this automotive industry the “jewel in the crown” of UK manufacturing. That is something I have always believed, and indeed I spent a great deal of my life working in it.
On the point about the few contributions made about the sector in this place, back in May 2018 I held a parliamentary debate on the subject, and I was disappointed by the number of contributions from certain quarters. Five years ago, I talked about the challenges that the industry faced, and the points I made then are hardly different from some of the points that the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has highlighted in its five-point plan.
The real fear across the industry is that the Government are not acknowledging the importance of the sector, and certainly have not over recent years. Until a few years ago, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) had an industrial strategy, which was recognised by the industry, but that has, of course, fallen by the wayside. Indeed, I attended the SMMT international conference a year ago. A collection of industry heads from around the world, as well as UK bosses from right across the sector, were assembled for a full day’s conference. The keynote speech was given by the Prime Minister, who was then Chancellor. Sadly, it lasted a minute and 40 seconds.
I will not put words into the mouths of others, but the reality is that, that day, the industry felt utterly disrespected by this place. The Government are the Government, but the industry thought, “Well, what does Parliament really think about the contribution we are making to the UK economy?” Such a short keynote speech was felt, by Japanese or European colleagues who came over here to listen to the UK Chancellor, to devalue the industry’s work, as well as its investment. Unfortunately, those signals are very badly read in boardrooms across the world because, of course, the UK industry is made up of companies that are headquartered in Japan, Paris, Munich or wherever, and they listen carefully to the messages coming out of this place. That is important.
To give credit where it is due, Margaret Thatcher actually recognised the importance of the UK industry by bailing out British Leyland back in the day, which saved brands such as Jaguar Land Rover and Mini, as well by attracting inward investment from the likes of Honda, Toyota and Nissan. Sadly, we have lost investment from Honda, Ford and others in the past few years. That is why we are at a challenging point for the industry’s future.
We are blessed to have some great companies here, including Jaguar Land Rover, Stellantis, as we have heard, and BMW Mini. Then, of course, we have luxury and performance manufacturers such as Rolls-Royce, Bentley, McLaren, Aston Martin—just down the road from me—and all the other myriad specialist companies, including Lotus, Caterham, Morgan and so on. The sector is even wider if we include the likes of Norton, Triumph—about which we have heard—JCB and Caterpillar, as well the bus and coach manufacturers that have a presence here and in Northern Ireland, such as Wrightbus, which are doing some superb product development and addressing the need to get to net zero.
The sector is so valuable. It can contribute £67 billion in turnover and £14 billion in added value to the UK economy, and it typically invests £3 billion a year in research and development. However, the industry has been so reliant on fossil fuels that the transition to net zero is a critical point in its history. I will outline some of the issues, one of which is the political stability—or the lack of it—to revive and attract the business investment that we need. Of course, I welcome this morning’s announcement by Renault-Geely, but we are really behind the curve. I will also pick up on a few challenges such as the ZEV mandate and the new trading relationship with Europe, including, of course, the rules of origin issue, which is so critical. I will then touch on energy and the other import costs that are a real drag on investment in the UK, as well as the need for an EV and hydrogen infrastructure mandate if we are to get the sector going.
The transition needs a clear industrial strategy; it needs to become a political priority. Sadly, the words “industrial strategy” have not really been part of the Government’s vernacular over the past few years, as we have heard. Make UK said that, under this Government, we have had a decade of “flip-flopping” on industrial strategy. Do they back business or not? Boris Johnson clearly did not, going by his immortal words. Of course, we had the kamikaze Budget of last autumn. That is all damaging to the way in which the global industry perceives the UK. This is not talking down the UK; it is the reality of the messages coming out of this place. Businesses want security and stability before they invest for, say, 30 or 40 years. Think about the Toyota plant at Burnaston, which has just celebrated its 30th year—that is a fantastic achievement. Nissan, of course, is that bit older, but those are really prized assets that we have.
Turning to net zero and the Government’s ambitions with electric vehicles, we need to press on that issue and ramp up battery manufacture. As we have heard, we are way behind compared with other countries, but we also need to support wider adoption of vehicles. The plans we have—offering interest-free loans and potentially trialling a national scrappage scheme—are important. However, as I said, the charging point network for EV is way behind schedule. My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) made the point that more EV charging points are being installed in Westminster than in the north of the country. That is quite a sobering statistic, and where we do have those few chargers, they are all too often poorly maintained. There needs to be a mandate to ensure that that infrastructure is delivered, not just for EV but for hydrogen hubs. We have made something like a tenth of the investment in hydrogen hubs that Germany has, which of course will be aimed at future heavy goods vehicles and other mass transport systems. Until recently, we had 12 hubs; that number has now fallen to six, I think, so we are going backwards when it comes to hydrogen hubs.
We have talked about battery production, and heard the passionate speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery). As someone who went to his constituency 40 years ago, I know how important that gigafactory would be for his constituents, and I would love to see that happen. The technologies are moving on rapidly: we can look at the work being done by Warwick Manufacturing Group, which is leading the development of battery technology, or by UKBIC, which is the industrialisation centre just outside Coventry. The UK absolutely could be at the forefront of that work, but we need the investments to make it happen, and as demonstrated by Britishvolt, that has just not been happening. There are some questions about what is happening with Recharge Industries as well.
I touched on hydrogen; Members have also made points about sustainable fuels, and there is something to be said about what could be done in that sector. The motorsport industry is doing a huge amount of work exploring those technologies, and again, we are very much at the forefront of what can be done in that space—how existing internal combustion engines could be used with that kind of fuel to bring them close to net zero. That innovation is so important, whether it be through motorsport or our higher education institutions. We heard about HORIBA MIRA from the hon. Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) and we have motorsport valley down the M40, but the Advanced Propulsion Centre at Warwick is also doing some fascinating work, supporting new companies with emerging technologies to make them commercially viable.
As the Government will know, there are some real concerns about the ZEV mandate, certainly about the tradeable element and what it will mean if manufacturers miss their targets, as well as what those targets will be after 2030. Then, of course, we have the rules of origin, which—as we have heard from colleagues, particularly “the Stellantis three”—are a real and critical hit to the sector. I am not sure whether I am a Stellantis fourth in disguise.
Matt Western
Maybe in spirit, yes—that is exactly what it is. Those tariffs will be real tariffs, going both ways, but they will particularly impact on battery electric vehicles. That is why Labour would prioritise an agreement with the EU, because we have to deliver a modern border and customs framework that will facilitate smooth and cost-effective trade.
I will make a couple of other points. We need the skills to make this all happen, both in the network of our dealers and in our factories and our manufacturing sector, but we also need clean energy. We have such a cost disadvantage in this country compared with France and a lot of Europe, but particularly when compared with Spain, where energy costs something like a tenth of what it does here. That is why Labour will launch an urgent mission for a fossil fuel-free electricity system by 2030, because we have to reduce the cost to businesses and to EV drivers as well. When we see the work that President Biden is doing through the IRA, we realise just how much can be done with a vision, and that is what I think is frustrating so many want-to-be investors in this country.
In closing, I come back to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), which I thought was a clinical dissection of the challenges facing the sector. This is a really important sector—from e-mobility to motorbikes and diggers—for the value it provides not just in the abstract to UK plc, but as I cited in my opening remarks, to communities and constituencies up and down the country. When I speak to businesses in the sector, which is virtually every week and certainly every fortnight, they impress upon me the desperate need for some clarity because they want to make long-term decisions. These are companies such as JLR, Stellantis, Toyota, Nissan, BMW, Mini and others, and decisions have been made by boards elsewhere around the world. That is why, with colleagues, I will always talk up this industry. It is an industry that I think is so important to our future, and an industry at the point of transition. However, we will be honest about the challenges. We must champion the prospects and what this country can provide to them, because we want the investment, and the industry wants us to provide regulatory, political and economic stability.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
To wind up, I call the shadow Transport Secretary.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
This has been an excellent debate, informed by real experts from across the House who are clear champions of their constituencies and of the automotive industry. I think the House can agree, following today’s debate, that our automotive industry is truly the crown of British industry.
However, I would say very gently to the Minister that her speech really did sound out of touch with the reality that the industry and the workforce across our country are currently facing. We were treated to 35 minutes, but there was absolutely no plan, no explanation as to why we still do not have in place the strategy to ramp up our battery production, and no plan for how we are going to deal with the looming rules of origin deadline or the ZEV mandate.
As we have heard powerfully today, the industry is struggling under a Government who have no plan or strategy, and are constantly risking more jobs being shipped overseas. My hon. Friends the Members for Luton North (Sarah Owen), for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), for Wansbeck and for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) all spelled out clearly the impact of this on their communities. This debate has been enormously enhanced by their contributions, and they are huge champions of the automotive industry in this place.
In the face of the new geopolitical reality and the approach our global allies are taking, the Government’s current approach is little short of reckless. The Biden Administration are at the forefront of this new economic approach, taking an active role in rebuilding America’s manufacturing base through their groundbreaking Inflation Reduction Act and the CHIPS Act. The European Union, with its Net Zero Industry Act, aims for 40% of its green industry to be based at home, and the Powering Australia plan is set to create 600,000 jobs and spur 76 billion Australian dollars of investment. Yet here in the UK, this Government seem content to settle for less and are resigned to good jobs and green growth continuing to head overseas.
So much for levelling up: it is exactly the communities that have already suffered from deindustrialisation that will be hit all over again. We know the story, and we have heard it again today, of how good, high-skilled, well-paid jobs disappear and their alternatives are low-paid and insecure, and of how poverty rises, inequality increases and the social fabric of communities is permanently torn. We simply cannot allow it to happen again, because the warning signs are already flashing.
Just two weeks ago, the Business and Trade Secretary and I both spoke at the British car manufacturers conference. The industry was clear that it urgently needs a strategy—or anything—from this Government. Mike Hawes, who has been quoted many times today, warned:
“We just need a plan, and one more cunning than Baldrick’s. I don’t care whether it’s called industrial competitiveness, activism, or dare we say it, an industrial strategy. We just know we need it, and we need it urgently.”
What did the Secretary of State have to say in response? I quote directly:
“We will come out with plans soon, please stick with us”.
Is that really the best the Government can offer—begging industry to wait a little longer and to hold its nerve, as they admit that they have no plan after 13 years in government?
The reality is that we cannot afford to wait any longer. For decades, our car industry has been at the forefront of innovation and expertise. We have heard fantastic examples of that from my hon. Friends the Members for Warwick and Leamington, for Ellesmere Port and Neston, for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood), for Llanelli, and for Luton North, as well as from my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South, who is a fantastic champion of motorsports. Under the Conservatives, however, we are losing the race for the jobs of the future. Car production has already slumped by one-third since 2010. By 2025, Germany will manufacture 10 times more batteries than we do, and the US 30 times.
We heard the whole sorry tale of the history of Britishvolt from my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck. He is right—it is an ideal site for a gigafactory, because it has the grid connections and supply chain in the north-east, but it has been failed, repeatedly, by this Government. Manufacturers are already leaving the UK or shutting up shop: Arrival has left Bicester for the US; Honda has closed its Swindon plant after 35 years of production; Ford has cut thousands of jobs at its Halewood plant; and manufacturers in the supply chain such as SKF in Luton are at risk of being offshored to Poland. Yet more problems are looming, self-inflicted by this reckless Government.
We have heard many times today of the impending cliff edge through the trade and co-operation agreement, with new rules of origin requirements that will apply huge tariffs to UK exports if we cannot produce enough batteries at home. The Government have had two and a half years since the agreement was signed, but they have failed to use that time to ramp up our battery capacity. That is coupled with their own looming ZEV mandate that industry has no detail about. Our industry will be slapped with tariffs, and demand will move to countries with the battery capacity such as China.
Communities such as Llanelli, Luton, Birmingham, Elsmere Port and Wansbeck will suffer, as will those such as Blyth, West Brom, South Derbyshire, Durham, and Crewe. That is why many constituents across the country will wonder why this debate has been so one-sided and from one side of the House, and why Labour will create the conditions for our car industry not just to survive, but to thrive. Our vision is one where good jobs in the industries of the future—jobs that people can be proud of and raise a family on—are brought back to our industrial heartlands. That is why, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, we have developed a plan to turbocharge electric vehicle manufacturing.
First, we will address the consequence of the Conservatives’ Brexit deal, acting to avoid the cliff edge in the TCA that will slap tariff on our electric vehicles. We will rapidly scale up our domestic battery industry by part-financing eight additional gigafactories through our green prosperity plan. We will accelerate the EV charge point roll-out by setting new, binding targets on Governments, and we will make the UK a clean energy superpower by 2030, lowering the sky-high electricity costs for UK industries and cutting £93 billion in energy bills for the British people, by investing in cleaner, cheaper, homegrown power for our country.
With Labour’s plan to turbocharge our EV transition the opportunities are clear for all to see, and we have heard them expressed loud and clear today: resilience to withstand geopolitical shocks; 80,000 good, green jobs right here, not in China; £30 billion of investment across the country, forging resilience at home while creating new partnerships abroad; an active state working in concert with innovative, world-leading manufacturers, pursuing a modern industrial strategy; and new life breathed into our hollowed out industrial base. Mr Deputy Speaker, Labour will not shy away from the challenges facing our car industry. We will back it every step of the way, and we have the plan to prove it. I urge colleagues to support our motion today.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
It has been an interesting and absorbing debate, and I thank all those who have taken part in it. I must say that I take my hat off to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds). It is interesting to know that he grew up in Sunderland, and I notice his great affection for the Black Cats—an affection I greatly share—Niall Quinn and the glory days of Peter Reid. Who but the hon. Gentleman could better hark back to the 1990s, and how much does he do so in politics as he does in football? It is a little unnerving to see him newly hirsute—at least in terms of the past year or three. He is getting an unnervingly close resemblance to His late Majesty King George V, which creates a somewhat unnerving impression across the Dispatch Box when one is trying to respond to the important points he makes.
The hon. Gentleman came, as did the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), with a clear agenda for this debate, which was to tell a desperate story of a struggling industry and a country labouring in its automotive manufacturing. Unfortunately, they have both had desperately bad luck in their choice of debate, because those gloomy speeches are made, and the desire for optimism is expressed, and then it turns out that Geely and Renault have today announced a pioneering new investment to become a global leader in new engine technologies. Not only that: it turns out that we just laid the new charge point regulations, which will make it easier than ever to own an EV. Those were widely welcomed, I might add, by Mike Hawes of the SMMT, who was richly quoted today by Opposition Members, and with reason. Fascinatingly, only today, Tesla has announced its intention to become an electricity supplier, which will itself become an enormously important part of that wider systems infrastructure that has been rightly mentioned. What a day to choose to be gloomy on. What a day of good news, and how much that reinforces the picture of an industry that is dealing brilliantly with the challenges and changes to its own circumstances.
Jesse Norman
I would give way, but I want to respond to the many other points from Members who actually made speeches.
Jesse Norman
I hope the hon. Lady will let me get to those points first. [Interruption.] We can go on, or Opposition Members can listen to what the Government are trying to say.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde talked about low business investment, and he is absolutely right that one should not pick and choose statistics but try to give a full picture. I was, therefore, slightly surprised that he ignored the fact that business investment has grown steadily since 2010. The Institute for Government published a report that tracks the crashing of business investment in this country to the Labour Administration and dates its recovery from 2008 to 2010. That is the picture of business investment that the hon. Gentleman asks us to get to.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) rightly highlighted MIRA. What a great facility that is and what a great testing opportunity it will create for this country over the next few years. He is right to talk about grid connectivity and to mention Triumph Motorcycles, a business that I met only the other day, but he would have wanted to mention the strategic framework, which was announced last year, for electricity provision. If there is a report coming soon—he can speak from his knowledge of that in a Parliamentary Private Secretary context—I can only applaud that.
The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) worried about the roll-out of charge points. I hope she will be reassured by the new regs on charge points, which we have only just laid and which were welcomed by the SMMT and many other players across that industry. I also hope she will be pleased that ChargeUK, representing the charge point operators, has announced that £6 billion will be invested in charge points across the country over the next few years. That is a direct result of the ZEV mandate, which ties the creation of charge point infrastructure to the support for EVs in the systemic way that parties across the House, including the Opposition, recognise. It is those two things that will grow together. It is the ability to aim against that target of specific EV numbers coming into and being sold in this country that creates the priming for private investment, and rightly so.
I was pleased to hear the contribution of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood), who was absolutely right to raise the topic of apprenticeships. As an apprentice in this House, I salute him; he echoed the “Education, education, education” policy of a former Member of this House with “Skills, skills, skills”, which I completely agree are very important. Let me remind him that in my constituency we are pioneering a specialist STEM technology university—the New Model Institute for Technology and Engineering—which is just the thing that can be used to build skills and to prime levelling up across the country.
What a wonderfully fresh and enthusiastic speech from the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson). I was excited to hear it, but tragically it turned out to be a tag-team “curse on both your houses” misery exercise, relitigating Brexit long after that horse has left the stable. That was rightly picked up by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, who did not want to be drawn on Brexit. I understand why: the country took a decision and we are working with the consequences.
The hon. Member for Gordon said that the speech by my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Economic Security—a brilliant speech it was, too—was the length of time it would take to charge an EV. At 35 minutes, that is not quite true, but that is absolutely the ambition that we want to get to for all EV operators across the country. We want people to be able to charge very rapidly while they go and pick up a cup of coffee in the usual way.
I thank the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) for her comment. She asked for a renewable energy focus and was right to do so. I hope that I can reassure her by reminding her that National Grid reported that in 2010 less than 20% of our energy was renewable, while in 2022—last year—more than 50% was renewable in five months of the year. That is tremendous progress. She may also be pleased to know that coal, which was used for 43% of electricity generation in 2012, is now at 1.5%. That is tremendous progress on both those fronts.
Sarah Owen
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Listening to the Minister’s response, I want to give him the opportunity to correct the record. Not only does he seem not to be living on the same planet as us, but he is clearly not in the same Chamber. He implied that I had not spoken in the debate, but I gave a lengthy speech on the issues we are facing in Luton right now. I invite him to correct the record at the Dispatch Box.
Jesse Norman
I would be happy to respond to the hon. Lady. That is not actually what I said. I said that I wanted to respond to the speeches and therefore I would not take interventions at that time. I will of course—[Interruption.] If she would prefer me to respond not to her speech but to an intervention, I will let her make an intervention.
Sarah Owen
I thank the Minister for finally allowing an intervention. He talked about optimism. Does he feel optimistic that the manufacturing industry now faces a 10% tariff on passenger cars and a 22% tariff on vans? Does he believe that we should all be optimistic about that future, or does he believe the reality—that the manufacturing industry faces a cliff edge?
Jesse Norman
If that is the best the hon. Lady can do, she would have been better to wait for my response to her speech. No, the truth of the matter is that this country is engaged in discussions and negotiations with European partners about the circumstances—we export an enormous number of cars, which is an important fact from their point of view as it is from ours—and it would be futile to discuss those matters in public. We all know that none of these negotiations is ever done in public, and that includes commercial negotiations, which Labour appears to wish to be done in public as well.
Let me proceed a little more. The hon. Members for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) and for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) touched on new gigafactories. I invite Opposition Front- Bench Members to comment further if they wish, because this is a much-heralded part of the Labour strategy, and if the Labour party seeks to subsidise eight new gigafactories, perhaps they would like to put on record how much public money—taxpayer’s money—they propose to spend on that and how it would be funded. We very much look forward to seeing their plans. I will be interested to see whether they bear any resemblance to market conditions or show any signs of doing anything other than immiserating and impoverishing the British taxpayer.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House recognises that the automotive industry is the jewel in the crown of British manufacturing and believes it can have a bright future creating good jobs for people across the UK; regrets that after 13 years of Conservative neglect the UK risks losing this world-class industry, putting thousands of jobs under threat; condemns the Government for its lack of an industrial strategy and the negative impact this has had on investment in the UK’s automotive sector; calls on the Government to urgently resolve the rules of origin changes which are due to take effect in 2024, working with partners across Europe to negotiate a deal that works for manufacturers; and further calls on the Government to adopt an active industrial strategy to build the battery factory capacity needed to secure the automotive sector for decades to come.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I have now to announce the result of today’s deferred Division on the Adjournment, summer, conference and Christmas recess motion. The Ayes were 395 and the Noes were 5, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]
Under-age Vaping
(10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House is concerned that children are being inappropriately exposed to e-cigarette promotions and that under-age vaping has increased by 50% in just the last three years; condemns the Government for its failure to act to protect children by voting against the addition of measures to prohibit branding which is appealing to children on e-cigarette packaging during the passage of the Health and Care Act 2022 and for failing to bring forward the tobacco control plan that it promised by the end of 2021; and therefore calls on the Government to ban vapes from being branded and advertised to appeal to children and to work with local councils and the NHS to help ensure that e-cigarettes are being used as an aid to stop smoking, rather than as a new form of smoking.
It is a pleasure to open this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition. We are witnessing an incredibly alarming rise in under-age vaping. In many ways, the statistics speak for themselves. A recent study conducted by Action on Smoking and Health found that in the last three years alone, the number of children taking part in so-called experimental vaping has increased by 50%. That has come alongside significant growth in awareness of e-cigarette promotions, with 85% of children now conscious of e-cigarette marketing either in shops or online.
What does that promotion look like? If hon. Members walk down any high street in the country and pop into a vaping shop or off-licence, they will see it at first hand. Brightly coloured e-liquids with names such as “blue razz”, “cherry cola” or “vampire vape” line the shelves. Some liquids are even designed to imitate well-known brands. We can find “Len & Jenny’s mint Oreo cookie” alongside “pick it mix it sherbet lemons”. In fact, it really is not an exaggeration to say that some stores selling vapes resemble old fashioned sweet shops, with pretty much any flavour we can think of covered in cartoon-led packaging. Let us make no mistake, this is not packaging marketed towards adults. It is deliberately designed to appeal to children and, most concerningly, it appears to be working.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Like my hon. Friend, I have been horrified to see custard, banana, bubble gum and doughnut-flavoured vapes, clearly targeted at younger palates. They are clearly not about helping people cease smoking. One of the challenges is that we know children are increasingly moving from vaping to actual cigarettes. Does he agree that there is no case for any further delay in the Government’s work to look at how we take vapes out of the hands of young people all together? Our generation all fought so hard against Nick O’Teen; now, we have Mr Vape to deal with. Does he agree that it must be an urgent public health priority?
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a place for banana, custard and even doughnuts, but that is not on a vape package. She is right that we need to close the loophole and protect children’s health. That is why we have tabled this motion.
In a recent evidence session on youth vaping, Laranya Caslin, the headteacher at St George’s Academy in Sleaford, told the Health and Social Care Committee:
“we have a significant proportion of students vaping. They vape regularly”.
The problem is so bad that St George’s has had to change smoke sensors to heat sensors, to clamp down on young people leaving the classroom to vape.
I would love that to be an isolated case, but we all know, across the House, that it is not. In Hartlepool, concerns have been raised about an increase in primary school children using vapes—that is just shocking. In Devon, schools have reported confiscating e-cigarettes from children as young as seven. Those claims seem to be reinforced by the fact that last year 15 children aged nine or under were hospitalised due to vaping, with health experts warning that the excessive use of e-cigarettes in children could be linked to lung collapse, lung bleeding and air leak. In Yorkshire and the Humber, it is estimated that 30% of secondary school students have tried vaping, which equates to around 109,000 children. It is just staggering.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving way. I have heard really shocking reports from parents and teachers in my constituency that children as young as 11 are using vapes and that one young person, at the age of 17, is now addicted. In the worst cases I am hearing, some young children are being targeted and are taking the vape apart to carry much harder drugs on the inside, which is causing an even bigger problem. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that we simply cannot wait any longer? We need urgent action from the Government to stop that happening.
Andrew Gwynne
The hon. Lady makes a powerful case. Those are precisely the reasons why we have called this debate. It should shock each and every one of us. The ease of access to e-cigarettes for children, many younger than the ages she gave as an example, just cannot be allowed. We must be doing all we can on e-cigarettes, as we did to tackle the packaging and advertising of actual cigarettes, to ensure that children are weaned off their nicotine addiction and that other children do not start vaping in the first place.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a very effective speech to open this debate. He quoted the figure of 30% for Yorkshire and the Humber. The figure for the north-west is 29%, which shows very little difference. Those figures are twice that for London, so it may be that some hon. Members are not aware of how bad the problem is getting. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health has warned that youth vaping is fast becoming an epidemic. Worryingly, the number of children admitted to hospital as a result of vaping has almost quadrupled. Is my hon. Friend, as a fellow Greater Manchester MP, concerned about how many more children might suffer those health impacts before the Government take the action that is needed?
Andrew Gwynne
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. As a Greater Manchester MP, I see the problem in my constituency and she will see it in hers. It concerns me greatly, because within our city region there are already communities that have some of the worst health inequalities. A lot of those health inequalities have been exacerbated by a higher than average prevalence of smoking. Even now, as smoking rates have declined, there are still communities in the areas we represent that have an abnormally high number of smokers. I do not want, in tackling smoking and reducing some of the health inequalities that are caused through smoking, to be storing up future problems with a new generation caused as a direct consequence of vaping or, more sinisterly, as a gateway to smoking later on in life. She is absolutely right.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving way; he is making a very good speech. No one in this country has ever been shown to have died from vaping, whereas thousands of people die each year from smoking. Yes, the emphasis should be on stopping children from gaining access to vaping and dissuading adult non-smokers from taking up vaping, but does he agree that we should not lose sight of the benefits of vaping for adult smokers in giving up smoking and therefore leading a healthier lifestyle?
Andrew Gwynne
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and later in my speech I will discuss the fact that vaping is a really important tool to assist people who want to stop smoking—indeed, Javed Khan, in his smoke-free 2030 review, made it clear that vaping has an important role to play in that respect. We certainly do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but we absolutely should be ensuring that children’s access to vapes is restricted and that the marketing of vapes is not done in way that attracts a new cohort of people who would never have smoked or vaped. While vaping is better for people than smoking, not vaping is better than vaping or smoking, and we do not want to create new problems.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I am sure my hon. Friend has seen the study by King’s College London and Action on Smoking and Health on the attraction of vaping, which concluded that among teenagers de-branding vapes had a deterrent effect on their purchasing them, whereas it had no effect on adults. Does he agree with that study and does he support action being taken along those lines?
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for succinctly stating the reason for this debate. That study is very clear: for adults, the appearance of the packaging makes no difference, but children and young people are attracted to the bright colours and cartoon characters and so on. The same arguments were made about smoking and led to us moving several years ago to standardised cigarette packaging. The evidence on children vaping is now so overwhelming that Parliament must take the lead. Industry will not act without a nudge from us. We must make sure that vapes are not packaged and advertised in a way that attracts children.
In a recent article penned for The Independent, a teacher in Oxfordshire described having been:
“rostered on to control numbers of students in the toilet block in an attempt to prevent the constant vaping that goes on in there.”
She went on to describe discovering
“a stash of over 50 vapes stored above a ceiling panel in the toilets—a tactic learnt and shared on TikTok.”
Worryingly, ASH estimates that most children who vape make the purchases themselves, despite it being illegal to sell vapes to those under the age of 18.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Only yesterday, I had a call from a head of year in Gowerton School in my constituency who wanted to know why the police and social services were not acting on his reports of sales of vapes in a barber’s shop in Swansea city centre. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is up to the police, social services and trading standards to take a stand and stop the face-to-face sale of vapes to under-age children?
Andrew Gwynne
Absolutely. There has to be a strategy that is not just about restricting packaging and advertising. There has to be more enforcement at the local level. I have some sympathy with local government, which has had to endure massive cuts over the past 13 years, so that things such as trading standards have been cut right back to the bone, but there can be no excuse whatsoever for shops selling these products to children. Every action should be taken to prevent that and to enforce the law.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting and important speech, but he is focusing on advertising, marketing, the bright colours and the sweet flavours, and he has not mentioned price. Price promotions are banned for tobacco, yet vapes can sometimes be bought for three for £12, which is pocket money territory.
Andrew Gwynne
The right hon. Lady is absolutely right. We tabled the motion because we believe that the action it calls for is something we can do quickly, but the price of vapes is also a driver, and she is right that we should look into deals whereby vapes can be bought really cheaply—as she says, with pocket money—because that would be another step to take vaping out of the reach of children and young people.
As I said, ASH estimates that most children who vape make the purchases themselves. Put simply, children are then increasingly being hooked on to addictive substances that are deliberately packaged—and, indeed, sometimes priced—to catch their eye. This affects not only their health but their education.
Who could have seen it coming? Well, not the Government, it turns out. In November 2021, my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) tabled an amendment to the Health and Care Bill that would have given the Secretary of State the power to prohibit branding that appeals to children on e-cigarette packaging. It received cross-party support but was voted down by the Government. When the Minister stands up in a few minutes and claims that the Government are on top of the epidemic of youth vaping, I hope he will explain to the House—to Members from all parties who supported that measure—why the Government voted down that sensible amendment in 2021, and why they are still failing to do something about this acute problem now.
Sadly, this approach to public health has become all too familiar when it comes to the Conservatives. We were promised a tobacco control plan; that was binned. We were promised a health disparities White Paper; that was binned. We were promised a ban on junk food advertising to children; that was binned. Why? Because the Prime Minister is too weak to take on those on the fringes of his own party who view public health with suspicion. That is why, on the Conservatives’ watch, health inequalities have widened, and why vaping companies have been given free rein to profit off children and young people.
The next Labour Government will not allow the trend to continue, which is why in Labour’s health mission we have been clear that we will ban the packaging and marketing of vapes to children, and we will come down like a ton of bricks on those who sell vapes illegally to children.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
I agree with the shadow Minister that this is an increasingly serious issue that we must arrest. Does he agree that this is not just a health mission but an education mission? The surest reason why young people will now either give up and desist or not take up vaping is if they understand the harms and the risks, so the new education provision that the Government are helping to bring forward in schools, whereby children themselves will speak to their peers to communicate the risks, is a really important and welcome intervention.
Andrew Gwynne
Of course education has a role. When I went to secondary school, we were educated about the harms of smoking, although it did not stop a number of my peers becoming addicted to cigarettes—to nicotine and tobacco. Education has a role, then, but it does not have a full role. We only really clamped down on smoking and cut the numbers of people who smoke when we introduced regulations on smoking, including the smoking ban, which I am incredibly proud that a Labour Government introduced because it has had massive public health benefits for many people in the years since.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) referred to the research conducted by King’s College London in conjunction with ASH, which suggests that the removal of child-friendly imagery and colours on e-cigarettes can reduce their appeal to children while, crucially, not discouraging their use by adult smokers to quit. This is precisely the balance that the next Labour Government want to strike, so that vapes are used exclusively as a stop-smoking tool by adults, not as a way of getting young people hooked on highly addictive substances such as nicotine. I would hope that ambition was shared on both sides of the House but, unless the Minister changes his mind at the Dispatch Box, the Government are still refusing to commit to a promotion ban. That is bizarre because, in a recent interview, the Prime Minister was asked about the marketing of vapes to children, and he said:
“It looks like they are targeted at kids, which is ridiculous.”
The Prime Minister also said:
“The marketing and the illegal sales of vapes to children is completely unacceptable and I will do everything in my power to end this practice for good.”
Apparently, everything in his power does not include banning the practice of advertising vapes in this way.
Instead, the Government have announced yet another call for evidence, further kicking into the long grass the action that academics, teachers, parents and Members on both sides of the House all agree is essential now. The Government can try all they like to feign outrage at the current situation, but it is partly because of their inaction that we find ourselves in this mess. The Department of Health and Social Care could easily have included these measures in its tobacco control plan, had it not decided to scrap that plan.
The measures are eminently sensible, and we do not need another call for evidence to tell us what we can all see in our own communities. When the Minister responds, I am sure he will point to the illicit vape enforcement squad that the Government announced back in April to enforce rules on vaping and to tackle illegal sales. The squad is obviously welcome, but a few things remain unclear. First, when will the squad start its fieldwork? In a recent answer to a written parliamentary question, the Minister admitted that it will not be until “later this year”. When specifically? We are now in July. What are parents and guardians who are concerned about their children’s vaping expected to do in the meantime?
What the Minister announced in April simply does not add up to a comprehensive tobacco control plan or a strategy for a smoke-free 2030, nor will it stop the companies that are specifically targeting vapes and e-liquids at our children. The Minister knows it and we know it, so let us drop the pretence.
The next Labour Government will end the 13 years of Tory public health neglect that have seen health inequalities widen and healthy life expectancy stall and go into reverse in some communities. In our health mission, we pledged to make this country a Marmot nation, to tackle the social inequalities that influence health and to ensure that children have the very best start possible, to give them the building blocks for a healthy life.
There has been no joined-up plan for public health for 13 years, and the British people have paid the price. That is why Labour will put a mission delivery board right at the heart of Government—one that works across the whole of Whitehall to deliver secure jobs, fair pay, adequate housing, safe streets and clean air. The next Labour Government will build on our legacy of smoking cessation and take the bold steps needed to reach a smoke-free future, a future that has drifted further and further away under this rudderless Government. We will tackle underage vaping and work alongside councils and the NHS to ensure that vapes are used exclusively as a stop-smoking aid.
In short, prevention is better than cure. We will reform our healthcare system so that it focuses relentlessly on preventing the causes of ill health in the first place. For voters, the next general election will be a crystal-clear choice: choose a Conservative Government who have undone decades of progress when it comes to public health, or choose a Labour Government who will work day in, day out to give everyone in Britain the opportunity to lead a happy, healthy and fulfilling life.
I commend our motion to the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Neil O’Brien)
Protecting children from the risks of vaping is a key Government priority. We regulate vaping, with a minimum age of sale of 18; advertising restrictions, such as a ban on TV and radio; and a cap on nicotine levels and tank sizes. However, in the past two years there has been an increase in children vaping, which is why we have already taken action and will take further actions.
Despite its effectiveness as a tool for adults to quit smoking, we are concerned about the risks that vapes pose to children and non-smokers. Vapes are not risk-free. Nicotine is highly addictive and can be harmful, and there are unanswered questions on the longer-term use of vaping. As Professor Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer says:
“If you smoke, vaping is much safer; if you don’t smoke, don’t vape”.
So earlier this year, in April, I announced new measures to step up our efforts to stop children getting hooked on vaping. First, I announced a new specialised illicit vapes enforcement squad. It is a dedicated new team to tackle underage vape sales and the illicit products that young people have access to, hold companies to account and enforce the rules. We are providing £3 million of new funding to trading standards, which will help to share knowledge and intelligence across the country; undertake test purchasing; disrupt illicit supply, including by organised crime gangs; remove illegal products from our shelves and at our borders; and undertake more testing to ensure compliance with our rules, bolstering the training capacity of trading standards. We have already made firms withdraw products where they do not comply with the rules. With the new squad, more companies that fail to comply with the law will be held accountable. I am pleased to announce that the National Trading Standards has begun its operation—that directly answers the question asked by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne)—and is gathering intelligence, training staff and bolstering capacity to begin its fieldwork.
In April, I also launched a call for evidence on youth vaping, to identify opportunities to reduce the number of children accessing and using vape products, and to explore where Government can go further. Our call for evidence explored a range of issues about how we ensure regulatory compliance. It was partly about the appearance and characteristics of vapes, including colours and flavours, and partly about their marketing and promotion, particularly the role of social media. Our call for evidence closed on 6 June and the Government are urgently and carefully examining the response.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I know that the Minister is committed to closing that loophole that allows vaping companies to give children free samples, but, as we have all discussed, this is about the direct gateway effect between people vaping and then smoking. Parents in Walthamstow they are convinced that more children will end up smoking as a result of being able to access vaping in any form at all. So why are the Government consulting on limiting access to vaping for under-18s, rather than just stopping it altogether?
Neil O’Brien
We are trying to stop access to vapes for the under-18s—it is literally illegal. We are trying not only to enforce the law but to reduce demand, as we have been discussing in this debate. We are not in disagreement about what the objective is: we do not want any kids to smoke or to vape—it is as simple as that.
Daisy Cooper
The Minister said that this is “literally illegal”. According to the director general of the UK Vaping Industry Association, 40% to 50% of the disposable vapes market is made up of illicit products. So does the Minister agree that as well improving the regulation of vapes within the legal market that we have heard about so far, we must also see improvements to border security, to clamp down on illicit vape sales?
Neil O’Brien
I completely agree with the hon. Lady on that point; this is exactly what our enforcement squad is doing, and I completely agree about the importance of doing it.
On the call for evidence, we will be producing our response in early autumn, identifying and outlining areas where the Government will go further. The key point is that we need evidence to take effective action to stop children vaping. While that call for evidence has been running, we have already taken further steps. At the end of May, the Prime Minister announced several new measures to support our efforts to tackle youth and kids’ vaping. That included closing the loophole in our laws that has been allowing companies to give out free samples of vapes to under-18s, which ASH estimates could total as many as 20,000 a year. He also announced that we will overhaul the rules on selling nicotine-free vapes to under-18s and on issuing fines to shops selling vapes to the under-18s.
The Prime Minister also announced that we will update the school curriculum, to emphasise the health risks of vaping within relationships, sex and health education lessons, just as schools currently do for smoking and drinking, so that kids understand the risks of vaping. We will be writing to police forces to ensure dedicated school liaison officers across the country are using the new resources available to keep illegal vapes out of schools.
I want to use this opportunity to outline the work we are doing to successfully reduce smoking, not least because the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson touched on it. In the 1970s, more than 40% of people smoked, and it was still 21% in 2010. Since then, we have taken a series of steps, including doubling excise duties and introducing a minimum excise tax on the cheapest cigarettes, that have helped to drive down smoking to a record low of just 13% in England.
We have gone from 21% to 13%, but of course we want to go further. In 2019, we announced our ambition for England to go smoke-free by 2030, which is considered to be 5% or less. Over the past decade, we have made significant progress towards making England smoke free. We have continued to invest in local stop-smoking services, to help smokers get the right support for them. We continue to work in support of the NHS. Last year alone, we provided £35 million to the NHS long-term plan commitments on smoking.
Youth smoking rates are now at their lowest rates on record. In 2021, just 3.3% of 15-year-olds were regular smokers, although of course we want to reduce that figure even further. Through the new measures I announced in April, the Government will be supporting many more smokers to quit through the tobacco reduction strategy. Some 1 million smokers will be encouraged to Swap to Stop, swapping cigarettes for vapes under a new national scheme that targets those who are most at risk and gives them free vapes. That is first scheme of its kind in the world. It is based on experience from the successful local pilots, and is an evidence-based initiative.
Likewise, we will offer innovative, but evidence-based, financial incentives for all women to stop smoking in pregnancy. Again, this is based on evidence that has been gathered during local pilot schemes and the strategy will be implemented at a national level. Shortly, we will launch a consultation on cigarette pack inserts to provide further information to support smokers to quit, which is something Canada has done successfully.
Further, those who supply tobacco for sale in the UK must be registered for tobacco track and trace, and obtain an economic operator ID. We brought in that scheme to tackle illegal tobacco, but we now want to use the existing system in a new way, to help strengthen enforcement and to target the illicit market. From now on, when people are found selling illicit tobacco, we will not just seize their products but remove their economic operator ID, so they will no longer be able to buy or sell tobacco. We are exploring how to share information with local partners about who is registered on the track and trace system, so that they know who is and who is not legally entitled to sell tobacco in their areas, helping to drive enforcement.
We are committed to doing all we can to prevent children from starting to vape and we are already taking robust action in a range of areas. We are actively working on ways that we can go further, but it is essential that those methods are evidence based and that we have measures that will be effective.
Barbara Keeley
The Minister will have heard the figures given earlier: my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) said that 30% of secondary school pupils in Yorkshire and Humberside have tried vaping and I said that the figure for the north-west was 29%. I quoted the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health saying that youth vaping is “fast becoming epidemic”. He is talking about an evidence-based plan, but what is the situation around evidence? My local area still has very high levels of smoking, but we are now seeing the same pattern tracking in vaping among young people as we did in smoking. Does he agree that there needs to be different and further action in those places where the figures are so bad?
Neil O’Brien
The theme of my speech is that we have already taken action and we will continue to take action, but that it has to be evidence based. A range of suggestions has been made during the debate, and I am sure there will be more, about different things to do with flavours, packaging, colours and marketing. There needs to be evidence and definition about those things. Some people will probably say that we should ban all flavours; some will say, “Let’s ban all coloured vapes”; some will say that we should have plain packaging or vapes should be hidden from view. We will need to take an evidence-based view on all those issues, rather than just assuming that one knows the answer immediately.
It is not totally obvious to me what the position is of the Opposition Front Bench team on any of those issues—whether they would ban all colours, ban all flavours, demand plain packaging, or want the same kind of restrictions as there are for cigarettes in terms of where they are placed in shops. I am happy to take an intervention if the shadow team have answers to those questions. Is it a yes or a no to those things?
Andrew Gwynne
What we are here to talk about today is advertising and packaging. I made it very clear in my contribution that the next Labour Government would act robustly on both those issues.
Neil O’Brien
Act robustly? I think we all want to act robustly. The shadow Minister said in his speech that he did not like banana-flavoured vapes, but would they be banned? I am happy to take an intervention if the shadow team have an answer. I do not think that we have an answer. That, ladies and gentlemen, is why we need to have evidence. We need to have an evidence-based approach, and we need to have not just the evidence about what drives these things, but clear definitions of these things on which we can actually take action. We have to be clear about what we are and are not doing within all these fields.
All I was trying to do is to demonstrate that, while we are committed to taking action—I feel very strongly about taking action on this—and while we have done a whole range of different things on this point, we need evidence to make good policy, which is why we are having a call for evidence.
Daisy Cooper
The Minister will know that the Government commissioned the Khan review, which reported on 9 June 2022—a year ago. The Khan review took the evidence. It had the consultation and it made very firm recommendations about certain things that the Government should do. Why are we here again? Why are we consulting? Why can the Government not just follow the recommendations in the Khan review?
Neil O’Brien
On driving up support for people to Swap to Stop, we are following the recommendations. On the things that we have been discussing in this debate, a whole set of other questions have been raised, on which our call for evidence explicitly invited evidence, because we want to have an evidence-based policy.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because I want to turn to the evidence. We know that, when we had plain packaging and removed advertising around cigarette sales, we saw a significant decrease in the use of those products, particularly among young people. We also have other evidence: Israel introduced plain packaging in 2020 and Finland in 2022. There is plenty of evidence out there on the implications of plain packaging, so why will the Minister not use that evidence and implement things?
Neil O’Brien
We are garnering evidence on every different aspect of this policy question. In my remarks today, I have tried to illustrate some of the questions that we are thinking about at the moment, which I am sure we will hear more of during the debate. I was simply trying to make the point that we need definitions of things and we need evidence before we take action.
In conclusion, we are committed to doing all we can to stop children from vaping—that is a personal priority of mine. We are also committed to stopping youth smoking. In order to meet our smoke-free 2030 ambition, we are committed to doing all we can to stop people from starting to smoke in the first place, and to give people the support that they need to quit and save their lives.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
It is very welcome that we are here today. There is surely nobody in this place who thinks that we should not be working to protect children and young people from the health harms of vaping. The SNP absolutely supports the motion that we are discussing today. I am also very glad that the SNP Scottish Government are taking this issue seriously, too. They are looking at tighter restrictions on vaping advertising and promotion, they have a tobacco action plan being published later this year, and an urgent review is under way of the environmental impacts. Certainly, the management of single-use vapes is something that significantly concerns me. The potential policy responses could include a ban—on a personal note, I sincerely hope that that is what happens.
I have been in a number of these debates and, usually, comments are made about smoking cessation. Just to be clear: I am very supportive of all measures that allow people to be supported to stop smoking. Reusable vapes are a potential option. My concerns are very significantly around disposable vapes, but we should look at this issue as broadly as possible. Countries around the world are already doing that. In Argentina, Japan and Thailand, there is a complete ban on e-cigarettes. In the Netherlands, production stopped on 1 July and sales will end on 1 October. China, which is the main exporter of these vapes worldwide, has itself banned the sale of flavoured e-cigarettes. As things stand, there are 35 countries, which covers around 41% of the world population, where e-cigarettes have been banned.
One of the reasons why I became interested in this issue was that a constituent of mine, Laura Young, drew it to my attention. She said that whenever she was out walking with her dog she saw these disposables discarded everywhere. Of course, once she said that to me, I could no longer walk anywhere without finding disposable vapes myself. They are everywhere. It is an incredible amount of litter. They are on streets, on beaches, and in our schools, as we have heard. I found one in the loo in Portcullis House yesterday. They are described as disposables, but these things, which are being thrown away so casually, are not disposable; they contain plastic waste, and rare and potentially harmful elements including lithium.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
I am greatly relieved that my hon. Friend has touched on the environmental consequences. I realise that the motion is about children and vaping, and I think there is scarce evidence that there is anything other than harm available to children from vaping, in terms of their respiratory and oral health. Quite apart from that, the clue is in the title: disposable vapes. Only 30% of the million or so that are consumed in the United Kingdom every week are recycled, and those that are dumped are littering our communities and environment with their heating elements, lithium batteries and plastic packaging. Those that end up in landfill contribute significantly to the 250 fires a year at landfill sites. There is literally nothing to recommend these abhorrent products, so why does she think that the Tory Government are dithering in this way?
Kirsten Oswald
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and am delighted that he is as enraged as I am about the harm that these products are causing. I know that in his community people are equally as concerned as in mine. His comment bears reflecting upon, because how realistic is it that children will find ways to recycle this disposable product, or so-called disposable product, which is undoubtedly targeted at children, given that they are probably hiding it from their parents in the first place? There are no positive grounds for keeping these things about. I secured a debate last year focusing on the environmental impact, which bears reflecting on. My hon. Friend is right, so I am glad that he made the points that he did.
I am also deeply concerned about the impact on children and young people, because these vapes are so available, so inviting, and so increasingly used by younger people. I am particularly concerned about under-18s. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), who opened the debate very powerfully, talked about the Health and Social Care Committee having heard from a headteacher about the significant proportion of children vaping regularly. If we speak to headteachers in any of our constituencies, they will say the same thing. I was also alarmed, though unfortunately not surprised, to hear him highlight issues of primary-aged children vaping. That is terrifying. It is why today’s motion needs to be taken seriously.
The Advertising Standards Authority says that
“adverts for e-cigarettes must be targeted responsibly”.
I am not sure that that is what is happening. Such ads must, apparently,
“not be directed at under-18s”.
Again, the ASA has a job of work to do there. I wonder, although I suspect that it is perhaps unable to, whether it would want to look at issues such as sports advertising. Blackburn Rovers—other teams may do this, but this is the only team that I am aware of that are doing it—are being sponsored by a vaping retailer, Totally Wicked, for the sixth season in a row. We would find it unacceptable if our football club came out with cigarette branding on their shirts. I cannot understand why it is any more acceptable for a football club to come out with vaping advertising. I am keen for the Minister, or Government Members, to address that.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Would the hon. Lady be similarly outraged to know that the same company supports St Helens rugby football club, and called the stadium Totally Wicked?
Kirsten Oswald
I would be equally outraged. I know how much work the hon. Lady does in this regard. I am unsurprised to find that we are both enraged by the same thing. This is really unacceptable. If we are serious about dealing with the harms to children and young people, we really should expect sports clubs to be somewhere that they can see positive imagery and have positive influences. I recently visited a vaping shop near to where I live. I know they are sold in other outlets too, in corner shops and supermarkets, on Amazon and eBay, and we have heard about them being sold in a barbershop as well. They are not difficult to find, and they are so inviting. When I went into the shop, it looked lovely: the display was beautiful, with nice colours and names and all kinds of fancy shapes that looked like highlighters or lipsticks. I have seen some online that look like brightly coloured fidget spinners. These things are quite enticing, are they not? They are very attractive, and that is obviously deliberate.
I was interested to hear about the King’s College study on plain packaging, because anything that makes vapes less attractive to young people is obviously worth considering. I say that for many reasons, one being that I heard recently about young people purchasing disposable vapes to match their outfits. I must say that that had never occurred to me before, but why not? If they are purchasing them, they might want them to match their outfits, just as they might think about what flavour they would like, such as bubblegum or grape soda. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish talked about them looking like an old-fashioned sweet shop, and he was right about that.
Disposable vapes are designed to be enticing, to draw young people in. They are throwaway and they are affordable. The right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) was absolutely right to describe them as pocket-money purchases. Parents will not always know what their children are purchasing with pocket money; presumably children throw disposable vapes away, as I have said, before the parents find them. As parents, we have no idea whether our children are using them. I hope mine are not, but none of us can know that, because they are so easy to find and so easy to throw away that we must be alive to the fact that we might not have the full picture.
Presumably we cannot all have the full picture, because, if we look at the statistics, in a recent YouGov/ASH survey the proportion of children aged between 11 and 17 who vape has gone up from 4% in 2020 to 7% in 2022, and the proportion of children who have tried vaping overall is now sitting at 16%. We have heard significantly higher figures than that cited in this debate.
I think it is reasonable to look for disposable vapes to be removed from sale. That is certainly what I would like to see. I am pleased to hear calls for retailers to ban single-use vapes in Scotland, where environmental and health charities have joined forces to call for an end to the sale of disposable vapes. Groups such as Keep Scotland Beautiful, ASH Scotland and the Marine Conservation Society are urging retailers to follow the good example of Waitrose, who I take my hat off to here, in banning the sale of those single-use products.
Waitrose did that because of reports suggesting that their popularity was soaring among people who had not previously smoked, as we have heard already, including the younger generation. It is really important that we examine the subject. I am pleased about the Scottish Government’s action in that regard and I echo Barry Fisher, the chief executive of Keep Scotland Beautiful, who also talks about a “litter emergency” and emphasises that the time to act is now.
The time to act is now also on the illicit vapes we have heard about already—the dodgy vapes and the chemicals within them. Lab research shows that they have up to twice the daily safe amount of lead and nine times the daily safe amount of nickel. There is also chromium in there. We do not want our children to be ingesting those substances, and those studies are based only on some vapes confiscated from a school in England, so we do not know what else is out there; we just know it should not be. Dodgy vapes have deeply concerning health impacts. In Scotland, there have been reports of illegal vapes confiscated from a school that left children coughing up blood. Which of us wants that for our children? We need to act.
It is deeply concerning—and that is before we even get into the notion of young people who have never previously smoked using disposable vapes and then graduating on to smoking cigarettes. We know that is an issue. The producers of vapes would have us believe they were intended to rectify and remedy that very problem, but it turns out to be the opposite that happens. The World Health Organisation has expressed significant concern about that, stating that children who use such products are three times more likely to use tobacco products in the future. If the Minister is looking for evidence, that is the kind of statistic he ought to bear in mind.
Huge profits are being made on the back of all those sales of vapes to children. Big business is being done here, but it is not always being done by the rules. The most popular brand for children is Elfbar, but in July an Observer investigation found that Elfbar had flouted the rules to promote its products to young people in the UK. Advertising videos and promotions on TikTok, for instance, were felt to be of concern. Some of those videos attracted hundreds of thousands of views, on a platform that is used by three quarters of 16 and 17-year-olds.
We have already heard about children’s doctors calling for a complete ban on disposable vapes. The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), who is herself a children’s doctor, has spoken out about that. If we will not listen to the views of children’s doctors about the impact of vapes on children’s health, who will we listen to?
I am heartened that Humza Yousaf, our First Minister, says that a ban on disposable vapes is under consideration, and by the incredible hard work being done by the campaign group ASH, which absolutely deserves our thanks. I also thank the organisers of the TRNSMT festival, which took place in Glasgow last weekend, because they did not permit disposable vapes there, and I absolutely applaud them for that.
Less positively, however, I cannot thank the administration of East Renfrewshire Council, which is where I live. The motion, which I think is a good one, includes a passage about working with councils, and that is absolutely right. Of the 32 councils in Scotland, 28 supported motions calling for a ban on disposable vapes. Regrettably, East Renfrewshire Council was not one of them. It did not support the ban, seemingly because a ban was supported by the SNP. I am really unimpressed by that. It is a poor show from that Labour Administration and their Conservative enablers that they could not bring themselves in step with the whole of the rest of the country and, I suspect, with the Members who are present in the debate. That seems somewhat ironic given the motion that is before the House. I hope that they will reflect on that and change their mind, and that we will get a full set of councils to support the ban—although the numbers so far are pretty impressive.
I hope that the Scottish Government come to the conclusion that these things are too dangerous and damaging, although I am grateful for their sterling work so far. I hope that the UK Government will listen to what is being said to them. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Dave Doogan), I was not entirely convinced that a huge degree of listening was going on, but I hope that I am wrong about that and that we will hear about a very serious focus on the matter. The industry will not take the steps that are needed; politicians need to do that. Disposable vapes are a danger to the environment and to our young people. It is high time that we took them off the shelf.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
As the Chair of said Committee, I am very conscious of the importance of these issues, and I am pleased to see them debated in the House. I welcome the debate, but anywhere I have seen this issue debated, including in my cross-party Select Committee—many of its members are here—I do not see an awful lot of politics in it. I have a lot of time for the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), but I thought that he was uncharacteristically partisan in his remarks—a Labour Government this and a Tory Government that. I thought that that was misplaced, but maybe that’s just me.
Our Committee heard from the chief medical officer back in February at the start of our major inquiry on prevention. Professor Whitty highlighted then what he called “an appalling situation” whereby vaping, which he described as
“an addictive product with…unknown consequences for developing minds”,
is being marketed to children. I absolutely agree with him that that is totally unacceptable and out of control. As a parent of secondary school-age children, I see, hear and read letters home about the subject in a way that I never imagined I would only a couple of years ago, let alone when I started in this House 13 years ago.
Professor Whitty noted that
“rates of vaping have doubled in the last couple of years among children”,
which is consistent with what we are all hearing as constituency MPs. That situation cannot be allowed to continue, which is why I agree with the part of the Opposition’s motion that calls for plain packaging for vaping. The record will show that I most certainly did not vote against new clause 4 to the Health and Care Act, tabled by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), in November 2021. I support that part of the motion—it is consistent and in line with what happens for cigarettes. I do not think anybody would argue that we should go back to the days of the Marlboro Man and branding on cigarette packets, so I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take that point away.
Kirsten Oswald
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way as he is getting into the meat of his speech. Does he share my concerns about the impact that advertising on sports kits could have on any attempts to bring down the number of children vaping?
Steve Brine
Yes, I do. I suspect that point may be raised later in the debate by one of my fellow Committee members, if she catches your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Blackburn Rovers issue has been raised, and it is not a historical sports deal, either: some may think that it was something that happened last season, but they have renewed it for the new season, which in my opinion is the opposite of “totally wicked”. I have young children who use that expression, and I can see why that would be attractive to a company wishing for Blackburn Rovers to carry its advertising on their shirts—I can only think that is the company’s motivation. I would ask Blackburn Rovers to look themselves in the mirror about that deal as much as the company that is doing the advertising, because it takes two to tango. Yes, I am concerned about that.
A couple of weeks ago, the Health Committee held one of our topical oral evidence sessions on youth vaping. We did so because we are very concerned about increasing media reports of children taking up vaping, as well as what we are hearing in the House and from our own constituents. During that evidence session, we heard from representatives from the health policy world and the medical and education sectors about the impact of the rising trend in child vaping. As was mentioned by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, we heard directly from a headteacher from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson)—a fellow Committee member—about the disruption that vaping is causing in her school. She did indeed talk about the impact on education of students vaping in the toilets and setting off the fire alarms.
We heard about the cost associated with putting heat sensors on top of fire alarm sensors—teachers have got enough to be doing! We heard about the disruption, which has an impact on education. During exam season recently, there were examples of exams being impacted by alarms being set off. As the headteacher told us,
“I became really concerned about interruptions to the exam season, so I had to change the smoke sensors to heat sensors really quickly to prevent us being in and out while students were sitting GCSEs and A-levels.”
That beggars belief. Young people have suffered enough in the past few years, their education has been disrupted enough, and now this—an epidemic of vaping that we are allowing to happen.
I raised the same point with the children’s doctor who gave evidence to the Select Committee. The issue of toileting in schools has wider impacts than just the disruption of education: children do not want to use the toilets, because they do not want to walk into an environment where people are vaping. They are worried about that, so toilets have become off-limits places. There is a much wider issue around toileting in schools and schools closing toilets. There is a very good charity called ERIC that works in the area of children’s bowel and bladder health, and without getting into too much detail, there is an impact on the retentiveness of children who do not use the toilet when they are at school. That can have serious medical implications, so once again, it beggars belief that we find ourselves in this situation because of vaping.
In my opinion, the industry has not gone anywhere near far enough in ensuring that its products do not appeal to the young demographic, and it is disingenuous for it to claim otherwise. Shops are able to display wide ranges of vapes in colourful, flavoured varieties and in locations that do not usually sell similar products: for example, we heard about vapes being sold in chicken shops and pound shops. That is in sharp contrast to tobacco products, which must be locked away and packaged in standardised plain packaging containing health warnings.
Evidence given to us by ASH from its surveys shows that flavour is a reason but not the main reason why young people who have never smoked start vaping. The most common reason for trying vaping among young never smokers is “just to give it a try”, at 54%, followed by “other people use them so I join in”, at 18%, and then there is “I like the flavours”, at just 12%. It is worth putting that statistic on the record, because there was a bit of a debate earlier between those on the Front Benches about flavours.
I have a few other points. Vapes are an age-controlled product; it is not legal for people under the age of 18 to buy them. There are a number of ways that young people obtain vapes anyway—for example, through the lack of age verification in shops or by buying them from other sellers who are often older teenagers who buy in bulk to sell them on, sometimes in school settings. I know schools take a very tough line on that, and rightly so, but teachers have better things to do than play trading standards officers on campus. We are particularly concerned in the Select Committee about online ordering, which is an area I think would benefit from more Government attention in order to avoid the law being circumvented. Overall, there is a need for much better enforcement of the law on not selling the products to under-18s. It is crucial that trading standards officers tackle non-compliant vendors, and of course are resourced to do so. I know the Minister is seized of that, and he rightly put that in his recent tobacco plan. I say tobacco plan, but I mean the tobacco strategy; as someone who has written a tobacco control plan, I was careful about using that word.
Price is another important issue, particularly the price of disposable vapes, as others have mentioned. They are much cheaper than tobacco products—much cheaper—in part because they are not subject to the same levels of excise duty. I understand that that is clearly not a matter for the Minister on the Front Bench, but maybe he could take that up with his Treasury colleagues. ASH told us that there is evidence that children are highly price-sensitive when it comes to buying these products, and that adding an excise charge of £5 on the battery, which is what we have often heard about, would act as a significant deterrent.
There are a lot of young people in the Gallery, and I wonder what they are thinking listening to this debate. I would urge right hon. and hon. Members to talk to young people, as I am sure we all do, either in their own homes or in the schools in our constituencies, and to ask them their motivation for vaping and what story they know about vaping, because their stories are interesting. I dropped into a vape shop in my constituency just the other day. I made a full disclosure: I told them who I was and that I chair the Health and Social Care Committee. High street vape shops are often very responsible in what they do, and this shop was very clear about how it approaches young people who come in. It told me about a product that basically looked like a bag of Skittles—other nice sweets are available. Skittles took the producer to court and the producer then had to withdraw that product. It does not take a genius to understand why someone might want to brand a vape to look like a bag of Skittles. Popping into vape shops and talking to them about how they do their business is time well spent on a constituency Friday.
To conclude, I have so many serious concerns about disposable vapes and the way they are marketed to children. However, I have to say that I do not support a total ban because, as ASH told the Select Committee in evidence, they can play an important part in helping people to quit smoking. We have to be very careful about a broad-brush ban, but the Government need to step forward even more than they already have, and this debate may help the Minister to form his views. I know he is personally very seized of this issue; he has spoken to me about it on a number of occasions.
The Government need to stay on this issue as an urgent case. A number of friends who also have children at secondary school have asked me, “What are the Government doing about this?” because they know what I do. The concern out there in parent land is growing by the day, and we parents are concerned—very concerned—about this. We on the Select Committee are also very concerned about it, and we will be writing to the Minister and the Secretary of State off the back of our session a couple of weeks ago to set out some of our concerns and some of the recommendations we may make. I hope the Government will take that on board, and come back to us promptly as part of the ongoing consultation the Minister has told us about.
I agree with some of the interventions that have been made. The Khan review was commissioned by the Government and it is a robust piece of work containing with lots of evidence. There is an awful lot to be seized of. I appreciate that it is challenging to get grid slots and get stuff through No.10, but the Prime Minister has personally identified himself with this issue and is concerned about it. I therefore say to the Minister that in that regard he would be pushing at an open door if he banged on a black door with a No.10 on it.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
I am thankful that those on the Labour Front Bench chose this important topic for debate. We have a policy for and a commitment to a smoke-free future, but it is at risk. In a mere few years, we have paved the way for our children and grandchildren to live healthier, fitter and longer lives. The hard work of doctors, nurses, charities, researchers and activists mean that we are on the edge of creating a future free from the shackles of smoking. That hard work is in serious jeopardy. Smoking still claims the undesirable title of the leading cause of preventable death in the UK, and at current levels, more than half of Britain’s 6.6 million smokers will die prematurely. Those are horrifying figures, and when a number of people equivalent to the entire population of Wales will die from smoking, it is clear that we are not moving fast, hard or strongly enough on our smoke-free by 2030 commitment.
As many ex-smokers will know, there is no silver bullet in the fight against smoking. Our strategy must accommodate an integrated approach that understands that targeted social support works with Government regulation—an approach that combines powerful new tools to help current smokers quit, while preventing children from ever forming this terrible habit. Vaping has its place. It is a tool, but it is only one of them, in the fight to end smoking.
Too much focus on vaping as the answer to cutting smoking risks raising its profile too high, and ultimately attracting more young people. Helping current smokers to quit can be only one aspect of our approach. Without further action to encourage people never to start smoking in the first place, Britain will miss its smoke-free 2030 target by seven years, with the poorest areas missing that target by at least 14 years. When tobacco kills someone in the UK every five minutes, we do not have 14 years to act, never mind 21. I therefore welcome updates on the important work of cracking down on the illicit tobacco trade, and congratulate enforcement agencies on seizing £7 million-worth of illegal tobacco products.
We know there is a strong link between illegal sales and under-age smoking, so tackling the problem at its source is by far the best approach. I am disappointed by the lack of Government plans to tackle the alarming growth in vaping among children. The introduction of vaping products has undoubtedly dramatically improved people’s chance of quitting smoking, but the appeal of these products to children is a serious concern. Communities such as mine in Ealing, Southall want and need strengthened trading standards. They want to see regulators able to impose the fines that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs can use. That was a missed opportunity earlier this year; trading standards can only pass evidence to HMRC. By not bringing through that important reform, the Government are providing safe harbour for criminal gangs and organised crime to generate cash.
This illegal and unregulated trade is of serious concern to me, but when the situation demands immediate action, the Government announce a slow consultation. We already have comparable evidence from tobacco products about packaging, flavouring and price points. We know that the branding, flavours and price are targeted at children. When the uptake of vaping among non-smokers is so high, it is baffling that the Government have not acted to make vaping products follow the same trading standards and rules as tobacco. If we are serious about tackling the uptake of vaping by non-smokers, we have to act to regulate and police vaping as we do other tobacco products.
I will briefly go a little off-topic, although the issue is relevant. In communities such as mine, it is not just vaping that is targeted at children. Paan is a serious issue. It is a chewing tobacco product, often sold in corner shops, with nuts, seeds and sweets mixed in for flavour, and it can be picked up for pennies a portion. Because of that and betel, there are terrible statistics on the rates of oral cancers in Asian communities, and anything that reduces those rates will save lives. Yes, we need vaping to help people quit, but only as part of a risk-reduction strategy; making vapes for children, marketing them at children and selling them to children—no.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) and to be able to speak in this debate. May I first pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), who has done so much work on this issue? She is a paediatrician and, frankly, we should always turn to her when looking for advice on vaping. I also pay tribute to a previous Member of this House, Jim Fitzpatrick, who was the Member for Poplar and Limehouse. He has now retired to my constituency—a blessing, although perhaps not an additional vote at the next election. His wife is a cardiologist, and she was talking to me about vaping and the fact that we simply do not know what the health implications might be 20 or 30 years hence. However, it would be an act of gross hypocrisy for me not to confess to liking the odd puff on a vape, and I regard it as an important tool for the cessation of smoking.
We need to be careful when we start discussing things such as flavours. The average vape stick has the most horrific, synthetic, disgusting flavour. They do not taste like strawberry ice, blue raspberry or anything else. They taste weird, but they do not taste as weird as the tobacco-flavoured ones. When I first came to this House—a long time ago now—it was when the tobacco companies were first marketing vaping. The products were almost invariably tobacco-flavoured and tasted disgusting, if we are being brutally honest. I do not know how best to describe them, but they were clunky in design. They were big and chunky and did not fit easily in the pocket. That is where the big difference has come—with cheap, slimline vape sticks, which are much more pocketable and much cheaper.
I really think that price is a two-edged sword. For those looking to stop smoking, there is the sheer fact that vaping disposable bars in particular, which are so cheap and easily obtainable, is really cost-effective. We therefore need to be a little careful and nuanced in looking at how we go about pricing them effectively. It is important that they still be a cost-effective route into smoking cessation, but equally—I made this point to the Minister—we must do something about what I referred to as promotional selling. It is simply not allowed to do two-for-one deals on packets of cigarettes or any other tobacco products—I hasten to add that two-for-one deals are not allowed on things such as baby formula, either—but they are allowed on vape sticks. I know from experience that the village shop sells three Elfbars for £12, making them £4 each, so three kids can easily club together and get a product that is incredibly cheap.
I think the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) referred to the Elfbar as the most popular and one of the most widely accessible vape sticks. I take real offence to the Elfbar name, because I think it sounds somewhat like “health bar”, if not pronounced in quite the same way that I would.
It strikes me that the motion does not address myriad issues. It does not address the naming or pricing of these products. There needs to be some good and effective research on flavours. I am happy to say that these things should be in plain packaging, and they should not be brightly coloured. I do not see what is wrong with a slimline black vape stick—or olive green, which we know has been so effective in the plain packaging of cigarettes.
Tomorrow, I will meet the two headteachers of Romsey School and Mountbatten School. A problem in my constituency is the ease with which children can obtain vape sticks, including—we have heard reference to this—doctored vape sticks. We do not know what is in them. I think my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), commented on the letters home from school. At the start of the Whitsun half-term week, the two headteachers wrote a letter to parents explaining that children from both schools had been hospitalised because of vape sticks and, to be frank, nobody knew what was in them. One child was suffering from seizures, and they were having an impact on heart rates. Those are really serious health implications that are affecting children.
My hon. Friend mentioned toileting, and I will go there, too—nobody will want to listen to this conversation, but it is important. Way back in 1983, the most terrifying place I ever had to go was the girls’ loos in the main block of Romsey School, where the air was thick with cigarette smoke and hairspray—a unique combination that many male Members of the House will have had no experience of. It is disgusting. We now have a situation where Romsey School has had to introduce alarms because—guess what?—through vaping, it is back, but we cannot smell it.
My mother had the nose of a bloodhound, and if I had had a single cigarette some hours previously, she would sniff it the second I was in the house. If my daughter walks in today, having consumed God knows how many vape sticks, I have no idea that she has done so. The same, of course, is true for teachers, who simply will not know from sniffing children—there are probably all sorts of safeguarding rules why they do not go around sniffing children—whether they have been vaping in the girls’ loos. I suspect that the boys’ loos are also a hotbed of it.
This has massive health implications for children. I remember how, at 11 years old, I would not go to the loo all day because the main block loos were so scary. We do not want to go back to that. We need our children to be able to go to the loo safely and with confidence, and part of that is about making sure that the loos are a safe environment and free of vapes. I pay tribute to my constituent Pete Sandhu, who has developed and indeed marketed a vape alarm, but they are still in the region of £300 to £400 per alarm. I gather that they compare well with an American brand, which is about £1,200 per alarm, but our schools simply cannot afford to be installing such equipment to ensure that pupils are safe while going to the loo.
In addition, I want to mention the levels of nicotine in vape sticks and the nicotine hit. I can talk from experience. The stark reality is that someone will get a far more intense nicotine hit from a disposable vape stick than from a cigarette. That is getting children addicted very quickly.
I speak in defence and support of the Minister; he is right to do a great deal more work on this issue, which we need to be evidence-based. As the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee said, children are very price-sensitive, but I was disappointed to see the issue of price not included in this motion. Clearly, the DHSC needs to have that conversation with the Treasury. We need the pricing to be right so that vaping remains affordable for those of us wanting to quit smoking, but is too expensive for those price-sensitive children to afford.
The places where vapes can be bought, such as hairdressers, beauticians and tanning salons, are inappropriate. We need a robust licensing regime that does not put those products on the ends of supermarket shelves, as I see in my local Morrisons. God bless Waitrose—Leckford, the home of the Waitrose estate, is in my constituency. It is a market leader in taking the right and principled stand. In the nearest Morrisons to my constituency—it is not actually in it—vape sticks are on the promotional end of supermarket shelves. Vape companies will have paid more to be in that prime location.
As Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, hon. Members will expect me to make some comment at the end of my contribution—I will not drone on for too much longer—about gender. There has long been a real problem with girls still taking up smoking more than their male counterparts. Some of the packaging and design of Elfbars is gendered—there is an awful lot of pink out there. It is important that any sort of consultation bears in mind that there may be a more targeted marketing strategy towards young women than young men. Please could the Minister bear that in mind?
This is such an important debate and I commend the Opposition for having selected it. I am inclined to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester, but I hope the shadow Minister will take my comments in the spirit in which they are intended. I want the idea to be done better, not just trashed. It is an important step, but there is an awful lot more work to do than just ban advertising. That is too simplistic.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), who made such a common-sense and honest contribution. I think everyone appreciated it.
Colleagues may know that I am a strong advocate for vaping as a way for adults to quit smoking. I am also a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for vaping, so I have a lot of experience of speaking directly with the industry. Much of what I say today comes from what the industry itself is feeling and how it sees the problem of children vaping.
I have seen so many friends, and my late husband, make the switch from being heavy smokers to using—I stress this point—safe vaping products. Every minute, someone is admitted to hospital due to smoking. Someone dies from a smoking-related death every eight minutes. Pertinent to this debate remains the fact that, while not risk-free, vaping is 95% safer than smoking. More than 6.6 million adult smokers in this country have not been able to quit smoking or make the change to vaping. However, I would never advocate that someone who did not smoke or had never tried to smoke take up vaping. That is not the way forward. Vaping must be a way to quit smoking.
Like my colleagues, I support the motion. It is unequivocal that under-18s should not use or have any access to vape products. However, despite the Government’s announcement to tackle youth vaping, it remains a major concern. Far more needs to be done to address it, and as we have heard, the trend is at epidemic levels. There is nothing more heartbreaking than walking up the street or being on public transport and seeing very young people at a bus stop or gathered on the street with a vape in their hand. It saddens me, it really does.
Measures are needed specifically to target rogue manufacturers and retailers. Ultimately, no vape should appeal to a minor. Trading standards really needs the resources and the power to enforce the law. A lot of what I am saying is also what the industry is telling me it supports, whether it is the vaping industry or even tobacco firms. I know many people really do not want to hear anything from tobacco firms, but in relation to vaping we should listen to some of the things the industry itself is suggesting.
One of the most effective measures to limit youth access to vapes is surely enforcing strict age verification across all retail channels, including online platforms. Retailers are required by law to operate age verification systems to prevent the sale of vape products to anyone under 18, but some retailers, we know, do not enforce those regulations effectively. Online retailers must also have a stringent age verification process in place to prevent under-18s accessing vape products. We know that retailers can get No ID No Sale! and Challenge 25 resources. They should make use of those resources if it helps them to challenge under-age sales.
The advertising and promotion of vape products is tightly regulated in the UK. However, some irresponsible online and social media marketing can and inevitably does still reach young people, with the results we are now seeing. The Government must strengthen online and social media regulation. No e-cigarettes and e-liquids, including product, packaging and marketing communications, should ever appeal to a child. We could do something about imagery, flavour names and anything else that relates to the world of children and young people, such as comic icons, cartoon characters or sweets. That must be clamped down on. At a minimum, all e-cigarette packaging could be inspected as part of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency’s notification process before a product can be placed on the market. Law enforcement mechanisms should also be reinforced, with fines and penalties reflecting the seriousness of the offence. This could be achieved by aligning fines with those relating to tobacco products. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has recently been given the ability to issue on-the-spot fines of up to £10,000. That should be extended to trading standards.
The UK Vaping Industry Association supports all those measures. Recently, John Dunne, the director general of the UKVIA, appeared before the Health and Social Care Committee. He stressed that the Government should take “extreme action” to discourage anyone from selling to children. He reinforced the call for fines of £10,000 per instance, a licensing scheme for vape retailers, robust age verification, and greater powers to check packaging and product designs for potentially child-appealing designs.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. My apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker, for arriving midway through the debate. I was speaking at the all-party parliamentary group on suicide and self-harm prevention.
The hon. Lady is making an impassioned speech. On limiting access to young people, when adults go to the counter to buy tobacco products they are behind black and grey metal cabinets. They are not brightly coloured and so on. Would that not be a starting point? We could get vaping products hidden behind those black and metallic cupboards, so they are not, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) said, all glossy and appealing at the checkout? Would that not be a starting point?
Mary Glindon
I do think it would. I also think vaping products are currently an attraction for shopkeepers to get people into their shops, especially young people—a bit like when alcopops were put on the front shelf. It is brilliant idea and one I hope the Minister will hear. I wish I had thought of it.
John Dunne also urged the Government to look at the new Irish laws, whereby retailers convicted of selling to children can be jailed. Should we go that far?
Since entering the UK in 2021, disposable vapes have come to dominate the market, with 70% of disposable vape sales generated by new users. Children are attracted by their branding, bright colours and sweet flavours. The latest figures from the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities show that in England youth vaping has doubled, from 4% to 8.6%. According to the latest figures highlighted by the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, more than 138 million disposable vapes are sold every year, and more than one in three products is potentially non-compliant, which means that more than 45 million non-compliant products are being sold each year. Figures have also revealed that in the last six months of 2022, 1.4 tonnes of illegal vapes were seized in, I am ashamed to say, the north-east of England alone. Trading standards officers across the country are doing their best to combat this tidal wave of non-compliant vapes. In March 2002, the tobacco company JTI UK commissioned tests on a variety of popular disposable vapes in the UK, and discovered that 25 out of 28 products were not legally compliant as they all exceeded the e-liquid volume and nicotine strength limits mandated by law.
Although the figures are stark, I do not advocate banning disposable vapes, but regulation must be tightened. For some people on low incomes, disposable vapes are an affordable way to kick the smoking habit. We do not want to send a message that vaping is bad, because we want some of those 6.6 million people to stop smoking by switching to vaping. Despite the Government announcing measures to tackle youth vaping, it is still a major problem and much more needs to be done to combat it. The Government must ensure that regulations are effective in targeting rogue vape producers and retailers, and not the elements of the vaping industry that are trying to sell responsibly to adults. We have to make sure that vaping remains accessible by adults who are trying to stop smoking.
The industry has produced a set of proposals on amending the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 to ensure that all nicotine and non-nicotine e-liquids are regulated in the same way, and that all e-cigarettes and e-liquids, including their product packaging and marketing communications, do not appeal to minors, by prohibiting the imagery we have heard about today. To complement that, all e-cigarette packaging should be inspected as part of the MHRA notification process before products can be put on the market. Law enforcement mechanisms should be reinforced with the fines and penalties that have been suggested, including the £10,000 fine, and the power to impose penalties should be extended to trading standards. That would be a practical way for them to help tackle this problem. We all know that trading standards need more resources than the Government have promised, given the sheer scale and scope of their work and the specific problem of youth vaping.
The Government have a clear opportunity to address youth vaping with its recent consultation. Clear steps must be taken to ensure that only safe and responsible vapes are available on the market, and that sufficient enforcement measures are in place to ensure that children are not targeted. It is the job of Government, the industry and enforcement agencies to work together to create a regulatory framework that acknowledges the important role vapes play in providing support for adult smokers to quit and prevents their appealing and being accessible to under-18s. The time for action is now. The Minister and the rest of the Government must heed today’s debate.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
If I may, I would like to ask Members to visualise the following scenario. The world is emerging from a period of economic uncertainty and there is a war in Europe. Young people are being given products that contain nicotine and becoming addicted to nicotine. Unbeknown to them, the products are doing irreversible damage to their young bodies, creating ill health and, indeed, killing more of them than the war in which they are fighting. There is not only the addiction to nicotine but lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and other conditions that have blighted so many lives and taken too many loved ones far too early.
The times that I just described were the times that my father experienced. That was my dad’s experience during the second world war. He was given cigarettes as part of his rations as a radar operator in the RAF serving in India and Burma. Through the magical world of time travel, colleagues are now in the 21st century, 80 years on in 2023, looking at the same type of young person, aged 18 and younger, and what do we find? The world is struggling with economic uncertainty and there is a war in Europe. Yet again, we find that many young people are being given free samples of products that contain nicotine—vaping products. Vapes are causing addiction to nicotine, and I dread to think of the other detrimental impacts on young people’s health. We have not learned the lessons of 80 years ago.
Vapes should not be used as a recreational product or, as I described them yesterday, as confectionery. Vapes should only ever be used as an aid to stop smoking. I remind the House that it is illegal to sell cigarettes to under-18s. As I just indicated, vapes are an aid to quit smoking for adults and should never be seen in the hands of children, yet that is not the case. Like others, time and again I see children—and yes, they are children—with a variety of multicoloured vapes in their hands as they leave school at the end of the day. They are leaving schools that do not have sixth forms, so they are definitely not 18. Legally, they should not be able to access vapes, yet they can and regularly do.
What is going wrong? Why have vapes become a fashionable accessory that contains what I believe to be one of the most addictive and dangerous substances known to man? I would now like Members to visualise their high streets. We may have lost many of our corner shops and the traditional tobacconists with packs and packs of cigarettes stacked up behind the counter and, as we have heard, where they do still exist they are heavily regulated, with cigarettes hidden behind screens and in plain packaging, yet they have been replaced with brightly lit shops stacked full of multicoloured vaping products. The product placement and design is second to none, with modern interiors and the minimalistic look that is so attractive to youngsters. It is like candy to the eyes of young people as they walk past on their way to school.
What does this situation say about us? How have we allowed this to happen again? The tobacco industry, starved of its traditional revenue, is now seeking new victims by ploughing billions of pounds into the vaping industry, and it is doing that without clear, long-term scientific evidence of what vaping is doing to the young people who have been influenced by the tobacco industry’s sleek marketing. This must stop, and it must stop now. We cannot allow vaping to become the new cigarettes. Far too many of us have seen the consequences of smoking and we must not allow history to repeat itself.
For that reason, I have five requests of my hon. Friend the Minister. First, we should update both the Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015 and the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion (Brandsharing) Regulations 2004 to cover vaping products. Secondly, we should amend the Tobacco Products and Nicotine Inhaling Products (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 to prohibit the sale of flavoured vaping liquid. Thirdly, will my hon. Friend look carefully at the case for outlawing the sale of tobacco and vaping products within a defined radius of schools? Fourthly, we should ensure that the ban on the sale of vaping products to those under the age of 18 is properly and rigorously enforced by trading standards. Finally, I urge my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to specifically target vaping products in his next Budget statement, to disincentivise the recreational habit through the tax system. Only then can we truly claim to be a world leader in protecting the health of our nation.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
I declare my interest as a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health. I thank the Labour Front Bench for choosing this topic as their second debate on their Opposition day today.
I welcome the motion, which gives a clear indication that the shadow Front Bench and the next Labour Government take this issue seriously. Given Labour’s polling right now, I think this will be policy next year, if not before.
I have repeatedly made clear my concern about the need to tackle youth vaping. In 2021, as we have heard, I tabled amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill to standardise the packaging of vapes. These amendments would have removed child-friendly branding and prohibited free distribution—in other words, free samples—to children. As Members may recall, the amendments had strong cross-party support. However, the Government did not adopt my amendments. In fact, they voted against them, and I am still in the dark as to why. Perhaps the Minister might explain in winding up.
Nevertheless, the Government must take forward these measures without further delay, because marketing addictive substances to children is unethical. Although it is vital to strengthen regulation on vaping, we must not forget that smoking still remains a far greater risk. Smoking is killing too many of our loved ones. There have been 117,000 smoking-related deaths in the north-east since the turn of the millennium. This is a public health emergency, and the Government are dithering yet again. We have waited since 2017 for the promised update to the tobacco control plan. We heard, just a few weeks ago, Ministers’ proposals for achieving their smoke-free 2030 ambition. They will not achieve it because their proposals do not go far enough and their actions are not bold enough. As we have heard, the Khan review found that we will miss the target by at least seven years without bold action. In the poorest areas of the country, the target will not be reached until 2044.
We must encourage as many smokers as possible to quit their use of cigarettes, the most lethal consumer product, by any means that suit them, including the use of nicotine vapes. The Association of Directors of Public Health North East has made its position on vaping very clear, reassuring both the public and healthcare professionals that vaping poses only a fraction of the risks of smoking while, at the same time, stating clearly that vapes should not be accessible or appealing to young people.
Three quarters of adults in Great Britain support measures to prohibit vapes that appeal to children and the promotion of vapes in shops, which is currently legal. We have a lot of evidence to support the fact that vapes play a very important role in helping adult smokers to quit, but they should never be marketed towards children. As I mentioned earlier, marketing an addictive substance to children is unethical. Let us remember that nicotine carries health risks. Vaping may be preferable to tobacco as a cessation aid, but we have to remain vigilant to the risks to oral and respiratory health.
Underage vaping has increased by 50% over the past three years, and it is happening under the Government’s watch. They have had several opportunities to act: I tabled amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill; the Khan review was based on research and evidence; and ASH, Fresh, Cancer Research UK and others have provided evidence. There is no excuse for this delay. The first duty of a Government is to protect their citizens; Ministers are failing in their duties to our young people. Since Conservative Members voted down Labour’s amendments to tackle youth vaping, countless children have no doubt fallen victim to the disgraceful and unethical marketing of vapes allowed by this Government. How many more children must become addicted to nicotine before Ministers finally take action?
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
I welcome this debate on a hugely important issue that gives rise to related concerns. Recent research shows that 24% of children have used a vape and 11% of secondary school pupils would describe themselves as regular vape users. The data that has been disclosed in today’s article in The Northern Echo reveals that nearly 100,000 children in the north-east have tried vaping. Those figures should be of great concern to all of us.
First, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) for the amazing work she has done on this issue. She is my longest friend in politics and I wholeheartedly support her ten-minute rule Bill to prohibit the sale of disposable e-cigarettes. She is right in seeking to end the problems caused by these products. If they were simply used to wean smokers off cigarettes, they would be doing their job, but we know from the debate that they are doing far more harm than that. One key point that she has raised is that although vaping manufacturers often insist that their products are intended for adults only, they design their products with descriptions, colourings and flavourings that, as we have heard, appeal to a far more impressionable audience.
One of my biggest concerns is that we simply do not know the long-term effects of vaping, as e-cigarettes are very new. Let us not forget that there once was a time when cigarettes were considered safe. We know that e-cigarettes or vapes contain carcinogens, cytotoxins and genotoxins. A recent freedom of information request found that vaping-related hospital admissions almost doubled last year, with 32 of those cases involving children. The simple fact is that we do not know how bad the problem is.
I know that children’s vaping is a serious concern in my constituency, where parents are increasingly worried that children are being targeted by brands, with social pressures resulting in more children becoming addicted. At the beginning of this year, Darlington Borough Council began a crackdown on the trade of illegal tobacco and vape products. It began under the previous Conservative administration in Darlington and I hope that its work will continue under the new Labour and Liberal Democrat administration. As a result of that crackdown, a huge amount of counterfeit tobacco and fake vape products were seized, and numerous premises have either been closed down or are under further investigation. Sadly, this is like a case of whack-a-mole: one trader is stopped and another two replace them. Whether we are talking about underage sales or child exploitation, using vapes as a reward, or using children as couriers, we should be acutely aware of the risk to young people in our community from those who would engage in such criminal activity. There is a concern that criminals have now latched on to this market of illicit products to undercut legitimate goods, with a network of organised criminals operating in the background to feed the vaping issue.
I wish to highlight to the House the issue raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) about the location of vaping products in Southampton. In conversation with me, my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) highlighted concerns raised in his community about the siting of vapes in a supermarket. He launched a campaign in his constituency to have those relocated. He tells me that it was well met by the supermarket, so there is perhaps a lesson for us all to raise that issue in our respective local community supermarkets.
Local trading standards teams, such as those in Darlington, rely on local information and intelligence to tackle the issue of purchases of illegal and fake products. I urge everybody to encourage those in their communities to report such issues to trading standards departments.
We must stop children from vaping. My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham’s proposal to ban disposable electronic cigarettes is excellent, and I hope that her Bill is successful.
Dr Hudson
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech articulating the risks of vapes in terms of the public health of our young people and the environmental concerns with their disposal, but we are also seeing increasing issues with animals. When I was out walking my young dog, Poppy, the other day, she went into the undergrowth and came out with a bright pink, melon-flavoured disposable vape. She was just about to crunch it and swallow it, when I took it out of her mouth. I shudder to think what would have happened if she had crunched and swallowed it, because it was a foreign body, containing a battery and toxic compounds. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that we just do not know the risks to people, the environment and animals?
Peter Gibson
As an expert on animals, my hon. Friend will be acutely aware of the risks to animals of ingesting a battery. We know there are concerns about the disposal of vaping products. He leads me to recall the campaign led by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) on button batteries; this debate highlights similar issues.
I believe that the time has come for us to consider licensing the retail sale of tobacco products as a means of tackling those traders engaged in the sale of illegal, fake and contraband tobacco and nicotine products. We know such sales fuel organised crime gangs, so licensing is another way of cutting off that money supply.
Finally, I ask the Government to consider a cross-departmental strategy, across the Department of Health and Social Care, the Home Office, Ministry of Justice and the Department for Education, and working with local authorities, to ensure that we have the right legislation in place to tackle these challenges, including the correct disposal and recycling of all the paraphernalia.
Mrs Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friends on the Front Bench for choosing this important topic for debate.
I recognise that encouraging the use of e-cigarettes is a vital part of the Government’s strategy for a smokefree 2030. I am a member of the Health and Social Care Committee, and two weeks ago I listened to the expert panel and heard some of their disturbing evidence. It is worrying that the risks associated with vaping are still unclear, as long-term studies do not exist.
I was a nurse for 25 years. Believe me, there is no one who wants to support effective public health measures as passionately as I do, but I am concerned. It is illegal to sell vapes containing nicotine to anyone under the age of 18, but, in 2021, over 20% of children aged 11 to 15 had tried vaping. Clearly, something is not working. At the Health and Social Care Committee, I asked the panel about banning vape sticks, but was struck by the answer that banning them would drive them underground, which worried me.
One secondary school in my constituency told me:
“Vaping has massively increased with children—they are too easy to obtain and the negative consequences are not fully appreciated by the children. Vapes are also being used as a method of supplying harder drugs, which is a wider issue across our estate.”
Forty children and young people were admitted to hospital in England last year owing to vaping-related disorders. We have all seen reports about some of the terrible symptoms that they have experienced, from seizures and shortness of breath, to hypertension and high blood pressure. The Khan review, published last year, recommended that the Government do everything they possibly can to prevent children and young people from vaping.
If Conservative Members are really committed to doing everything they possibly can, they could start by fixing the mess that they have created in the NHS and attempting to make new records, rather than those they are currently achieving for the longest waiting list, the highest vacancies and the most disruptive delays. Doctors and nurses are working incredibly hard, but there are just not enough of them. Vital spaces in hospital beds across the country are being taken up by people who cannot access mental health or social care services and so cannot be discharged.
The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health warned that youth vaping is becoming an epidemic and that the number of children admitted to hospital as a result of vaping has almost quadrupled in two years. Our NHS cannot afford for the Government not to take this issue seriously.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall say this until I am blue in the face: public health is chronically underfunded and prevention is key. If we cannot stop children vaping once they have started, we need to make sure that they never start in the first place. The potential risks associated with vaping, especially for children living under a Conservative Government who are set on wrecking our NHS, are just too great. We need a Government who will prioritise prevention and support the NHS to take this issue seriously before the problem escalates any further.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I thank the Labour Front-Bench team for a great choice of debate today. I thank, too, all those Members who have made nice comments about me today. I agree with the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), who said that it is a shame to see children’s health being made a party political issue, because surely everybody in this House, from every party, wants children’s health to be as good as possible. In that vein I declare an interest as both a consultant paediatrician and a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.
I was pleased to see the shadow Minister talk about Laranya Caslin, the headteacher of St George’s Academy in Sleaford, who spoke so eloquently at the Select Committee about her experiences of children vaping in her school. Let me reflect on some of the things that she said. She said that there was heavy peer pressure in school encouraging children to vape. She said that vaping was seen to be cool and that children had to vape to feel that they were part of the in-group. She also talked about how it has a higher burden of addiction. She said that, sometimes, children would go out at break time to have a cigarette, or to share a cigarette with friends, but now they vape not just during break times but need to top up during lessons. That continual top-up is something that we see in Parliament, too. Yesterday, while eating in the Tea Room, a Member of the House was vaping at the table. It must be said that we did have quite a long session of votes yesterday. During voting, in the Labour Members’ cloakroom, a Member of the Opposition Front Bench was sat vaping. We are seeing people topping up anywhere and everywhere it would seem, and that is something that I would like to see stop.
As many Members have mentioned, the flavours and colours of vapes are very child-friendly: there are even unicorn flavours, which I struggle to believe are directed at teenagers, never mind adults. My 12-year-old would not thank you for anything with a unicorn on, because that is very much for younger children. Indeed, we saw in the Healthwatch survey that 11% of 10 and 11-year-olds are already vaping. That grew to 42.4% of 16 to 17-year-olds, with a gradual increase during the teenage years. Laranya Caslin also told us that flavours are important to the peer pressure on children to vape. She talked about how children would discuss, “Have you tried the cherry cola? Have you tried the unicorn milkshake? Have you tried the green gummy bear?” It is the flavours that enable that discussion to take place among peers, which encourages children.
I asked the industry representative, “Why do you need these flavours? Why can’t you make them basic mint flavour, no flavour at all, or tobacco flavour?” He said that when people smoke they lose their sense of taste to an extent. Indeed, the NHS website says that one of the benefits of stopping smoking is that after 48 hours a sense of taste will start to return. What the industry has found, it told me, is that if it has tobacco or plain flavoured vapes, people will move off smoking on to the vape, but when their tastebuds return they will not like the vape anymore and will discontinue their vape use. That is of course what we want them to do, but it is perhaps not what the industry wants them to do. Making it cherry cola flavoured, bubble gum flavoured, or whatever flavour the person likes to inhale means that they will continue to be addicted to that product and continue to use it. I encourage the Minister to consider that when she considers banning flavours, or which flavours should be allowed to be used.
The ten-minute rule Bill that I introduced on 8 February this year would have banned disposables. I understand that the Minister has challenges in defining a disposable in a way that the industry, which has such a heavy financial interest in the product, cannot get around and make the legislation weak quickly. I look for an update in how that is going, but 1.3 million are disposed of every week. We have heard already about the fires that they can cause, and the fact that most of them are not recycled. I understand that they are very difficult to recycle, because the nicotine salts leak into the plastic. It is not like a plastic water bottle, which can be easily recycled if it is disposed of properly. These vapes cannot be, because they become a hazardous waste, because the nicotine has leaked into the plastic itself.
Kirsten Oswald
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that the whole way these things are designed seems as if it is to prevent them from being recycled? They are impossible to take to bits. They contain, as she said, plastic, which is then infused with other substances. There are lithium batteries, and all manner of things. How would one possibly go about recycling that properly? I think that the answer is that one could not unless one were a specialist.
Dr Johnson
The hon. Lady is right: these things are incredibly difficult to recycle, and since 70% of children use disposable vapes, and they are the most attractive and cheapest for children to use, it is increasingly important that we ensure that they are not available. The call to ban disposables has been backed by a wide variety of people, including the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, of which I am a member, the Children’s Commissioner, and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. There is a widespread desire across all parties, and across communities, to see these products banned.
The industry said at the Select Committee that a ban will drive the industry underground and make things illicit, but as we heard from the hon. Lady earlier, that is already happening. There are already illicit vapes. When a school in my constituency confiscated five vapes and the police tested them, they found antifreeze and all sorts of products, including trichloroethylene, which was banned before I was born. All those types of products are contained in vapes already, so that cat is very much already out of the bag and should not dissuade us from getting rid of these disposable products.
We also heard on the Health and Social Care Committee about the health challenges. We hear that vapes are 95% safer than smoking. The industry continues to repeat that statistic. Where does it come from? How could anyone possibly quantify that? It comes from 2013, when a group of people who were not specifically experts in tobacco control got together and had a discussion. They then published a paper. Let me read something that was published in The Lancet at the time, which was more than 10 years ago. The editorial of The Lancet said:
“But neither PHE nor McNeill and Hajek report the caveats that Nutt and colleagues themselves emphasised in their paper. First, there was a ‘lack of hard evidence for the harms of most products on most of the criteria’. Second, ‘there was no formal criterion for the recruitment of the experts’. In other words, the opinions of a small group of individuals with no prespecified expertise in tobacco control were based on an almost total absence of evidence of harm. It is on this extraordinarily flimsy foundation that PHE based the major conclusion and message of its report.”
The Lancet also noted that
“one of the authors of the Nutt paper…reports serving as a consultant to…an e-cigarette distributor”,
and that another
“reports serving as a consultant to manufacturers of smoking cessation products.”
In the Westminster Hall debate on 29 June I asked the Minister to look further into the veracity of the claim that vaping is 95% safer, and whether, given that that study was 10 years ago, the modern evidence for that still stacks up. I look to the Minister for an update on how they are getting on with that, because we heard in the Health and Social Care Committee that there are significant health impacts for children, with eight children hospitalised from St George’s Academy in Sleaford alone.
We also heard about children being frightened to go into toilets, as the Select Committee Chair said. Some of those children were frightened to do so because they found that when they did, it triggered their asthma symptoms. Those are children who do not vape, but who have asthma and are frightened to go into the toilets because there is so much vaping vapour left in the toilets by other children that it is triggering their asthma and making them unwell. Some of these children are unable to go to the toilet all day, which leads them to have problems not only with asthma, but with urinary retention, which potentially leaves them at risk of urinary infection and incontinence issues in later life. It is for that reason that Dr Stewart from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health told us that she supported a ban on the use of vaping in public places.
I would also like the Minister to look at the use of accessories. On Etsy.com today, under the categories “girly smoking accessories” or “cute smoking accessories”, for £7.78—within the pocket money range—one can buy a teddy bear vape stand. It is a tiny teddy bear that people can stand their vape in when they are not using it. Will the Minister look at whether such items are suitable for sale, given that they are essentially there to attract children to this activity?
Moving on to advertising, we have a bizarre situation where Transport for London banned an advert for “Tony n’ Tina’s Wedding” that initially featured a picture of a three-tier wedding cake, because it would encourage people to eat fat, salt and sugar and that might drive the obesity crisis. That was on the tube, yet TfL buses have many adverts for vaping, including ones that appear to me personally to make vaping look cool and something to be aspired to.
I think TfL’s priorities are all wrong. The London Bus Advertising group states, as part of the group’s advertising to encourage people to put their adverts on the buses, that 5.8 million people would see the buses per week. I would ask those on the shadow Front Bench to use their good offices with the Labour Mayor of London to consider whether he can influence the chair of TfL to remove not just cake adverts, but vaping adverts from places such as tubes, buses and taxis, where they may be seen by children.
In the Minister’s opening remarks he talked about tobacco track and trace, and I wonder whether he is planning to bring in the same for vaping.
The other thing I want to talk about is taxation. Other hon. Members have talked about the price of disposable vapes and how they are accessible with pocket money. Very rarely comes an opportunity for a Chancellor to bring in a tax that will promote the public’s health, still make vaping cheaper than smoking, protect our children’s health and be relatively popular, yet raise revenue. While we wait to ban the disposable versions, I encourage the Chancellor to consider adding at the next fiscal event perhaps £5 to the price of a vape, to move them out of the pocket money range.
In summary, the Minister needs to look at a whole range of measures to challenge children’s vaping, including price, location, sale and use, colours, flavours, disposable items, advertising, education and enforcement.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
I join Members from across the House in expressing concern about the way in which vaping is marketed to, and taken up by, children.
We have heard that vaping is a useful tool to help people to quit smoking, and that it is safer than smoking tobacco and cuts down the chances of developing conditions such as cancer. However, the Liberal Democrats are deeply concerned by the rise and prevalence of single-use disposable vapes, which are explicitly targeted at young people, be it through the use of brightly coloured advertisements, a range of playful colours or their placement near the front of supermarkets. We must ensure that young people do not become addicted to those products, and that vapes do not become a gateway to smoking. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), who, during her excellent speech, referred to the location of vape bars in supermarkets. I will expand on that point by talking a little about my own experience of it.
A few months ago, a parent of a student at Tiverton High School in Devon reached out to me as he was deeply concerned by the rise in the theft of vapes from our local Morrisons supermarket, which is just a short walk from Tiverton High School, making it easily accessible before and after school, and perhaps during lunch breaks. I visited the store and found that the vape stand was indeed right next to the shop entrance, offering a range of single-use disposable vapes. My staff spoke to the staff at the store, and it emerged that that spot was, yes, chosen by the vendor. The vendor specifically insisted on the vape stand being at the front of the shop in that way, and paid extra for it. As is the case in other supermarkets, the security team were not regularly stationed by the front of the shop, so it seemed ludicrous to me and my team that those products were placed so close to the door and left unprotected.
We took up the cause and campaigned with community representatives, including those from Tiverton High School, and spoke with staff from Morrisons to get that changed. After a short investigation, the store offered first to have a security guard stand next to the vape stand, but clearly, that was not enough. I am pleased to say that, after a lot of pressure, the vapes are now kept safely behind security doors, which are locked during school opening and closing periods on weekdays, meaning that vapes can be bought only from the kiosk.
That is very welcome news. I thank and pay tribute to Frazer Gould, from my part of Devon, who raised this issue with me. I do not think it should take a constituent lobbying a Member of Parliament, and that Member of Parliament getting directly involved, to ensure that those addictive products are not left openly accessible to young people.
Kirsten Oswald
The hon. Member is making an excellent speech. It is very helpful of him to point out the constructive actions of his constituent in this regard, although he is correct to say that it is we who should act. We should appreciate all the constituents of ours who are very focused on this, including my constituent Laura Young, who has done so much work to try to get vapes off our streets.
Richard Foord
I am grateful to the hon. Member. I also pay tribute to other constituents of mine: many of the young people who attend Tiverton High School. I do not want to mischaracterise them as people who are only out to steal vape bars from the supermarket at lunch times. I have been to that school several times, and there are some brilliant pupils there. Many of them are aware of the risks of becoming addicted to vape bars.
The campaigners, the high school and my team have worked with Morrisons and we have got that arrangement in place, but that is clearly just one arrangement with one supermarket. What we definitely need to do is think about single-use vape bars in the round. It is clear that we need to ban the sale of single-use disposable vapes, clamp down on the appealing packaging and the advertising of those products, and ensure that the shameless vaping companies cannot get our children hooked on those addictive devices.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
One of the great pleasures of being tail-end Charlie in these debates is that one has the opportunity to sit through and listen to every contribution. The disadvantage is getting nudged to hurry up by those on the Front Bench. So, I have torn up my original speech, Madam Deputy Speaker, and will focus instead on the bits from the contributions of others that you did not have the opportunity to hear yourself.
There have been lots of interesting suggestions on how we can solve this problem, which we all agree needs to be addressed. I am a father of teenage children as well, and I share the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine). I have experience of my own children’s friends using vapes—their friends, I hasten to add.
Jerome Mayhew
As the hon. Lady says, that is what they all say. Obviously that is wholly inappropriate, but part of the problem in reaching the correct solution to this shared concern has been demonstrated by the richness of the debate we have had today.
All sorts of suggestions have been made. My non-exhaustive list indicates that some hon. Members said that we should ban flavours. Some of them said that we should ban all flavours; others said that we should ban only flavours that are targeted directly at young palates. There have been suggestions that we should ban disposable vapes, or that we should require bland packaging for vapes, although others suggested that the issue is not so much the packaging as the fact that they should be hidden behind closed doors. There has been a suggestion that we should increase the cost of vapes, but that was controversial—the hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) rightly pointed out that for adults seeking to give up smoking who are on very limited means, the cost of vapes is a very relevant consideration.
Dr Caroline Johnson
The cost is indeed important, both in pricing children out of the pocket money market and in ensuring that smokers who are seeking to quit can do so. However, to a smoker who can afford a packet of cigarettes, even if £5 is put on the cost of a disposable vape, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) described, the vape is still cheaper.
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful for that intervention. I do not have skin in the game about whether it is better to have a higher cost or a lower cost, but my hon. Friend’s intervention has highlighted my fundamental point, which is that this is a complex area where we need evidence to base our policy on.
It has been suggested that we should crack down on marketing. Others have suggested that we should increase education in schools, and there is a wider debate about schools policy and the use of loos in schools. There are other concerns, overriding all of these, about what impact our actions in relation to vapes—including single-use vapes—could have on the ability of adults to give up smoking, in order to continue the downward trend of smoking addiction in this country. These are serious and interrelated issues. If this debate were to result in a Division, there is no way that I could support the Labour motion, which focuses solely on banning branding and advertising for the young, because it may not go far enough. It may just focus on one little area, when the richness of the debate on both sides has highlighted how much wider and more complex the issue is.
As such, what we are really talking about is not so much our concerns about vaping, including by children: the main issue is, “How should we make our law?” It is a given on both sides of the Chamber that action should be taken, and the first speech on behalf of the Government, made by the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O'Brien) made it clear that the Government have already acted and are intending to go further. In fact, the Secretary of State said at Health questions yesterday that the Government were looking to go further, particularly on single-use disposables. It is not a question of whether we are going to act: the question is, on what basis do we act? For my money, we should act on the evidence and not solely on anecdote, important though that is.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I would gently say that the hon. Lady has made a long contribution, and I do have two other speakers to get in. That is the only problem.
Jerome Mayhew
Thank you for that indication, Madam Deputy Speaker.
To wrap up my submissions, I will say that the Government are absolutely right to have put out a call for evidence. That evidence has now been obtained, last month, and the Government should take every second that is needed to assess it and come up with draft proposals, but not a second longer, because this is a very important issue. As a parent, I share the concerns that have been expressed across the House. We need to address this issue—we cannot waste time—but we should do so based on the evidence.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I draw attention to my role as a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health.
Perhaps I could start my speech with a quiz, although I do not really want any answers because that would in effect name killer cigarettes. No. 1: which brand is promoted here?
“Give your throat a vacation…Smoke a fresh cigarette”.
That brand was promoted with a picture of an ear, nose and throat specialist holding what was described as a “germ-proof” pack of cigarettes as he had tested the brand’s ability to filter the
“peppery dust…that makes you cough.”
No. 2: Cigares De Joy makes the claim that these cigarettes benefit those suffering from
“asthma, cough, bronchitis, hay-fever, influenza & shortness of breath”.
No. 3, and I will name this one for context: Eve, the cigarette for the “feminine woman”, packaged in a box with a floral design, with ads claiming:
“Flowers on the outside. Flavor on the inside.”
I remember the former Member for Broxtowe, Anna Soubry, speaking of the sophisticated, long, slimline menthol cigarettes that were a passion in her days.
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of other adverts promoting cigarettes that we can see online today. Yes, there is cigarette advertising selling the health benefits or the glamorous, sophisticated femininity of a killer product that we all know would never be allowed to be manufactured if someone came up with the idea today. The laws, over the years, have put those ads into the past, but the tobacco companies have always been very clever in their marketing. Let us be in no doubt but that, for generations, they have always had their eye on the next generation of smokers, with children very much in their sights. Now we have e-cigarettes, many of them manufactured by the same tobacco companies, which are becoming increasingly popular with children and young people. When I drive past local secondary schools, it is common to see young people—it appears more girls than boys—sucking away on one of these devices. The advertising of them is a real throwback to those days I have described, when cigarettes were sold as healthy, sophisticated products that everybody should use.
Yesterday, at Health and Social Care questions, I asked the Secretary of State why he has not acted to stop the new range of advertisements for e-cigarettes featuring gummy bears and Skittles, with bright colours and cartoon characters on packaging and labelling, by adopting Labour’s amendment—that of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy)—to the Health and Care Bill to ban such advertising. He answered that
“we have already taken action. We took measures in April, and the Prime Minister announced further measures in May. We are keen to follow the evidence. That is why we have had a call for evidence. The ministerial team are looking extremely closely at this, and we will take further action to clamp down on something that we all recognise is a risk to children, which is why we are acting on it.”—[Official Report, 11 July 2023; Vol. 736, c. 156.]
But he is not acting on advertising. He could put a stop to it now. I take issue with people who say that this is not a political issue, because Ministers have taken what I can only describe as a political choice to do nothing in this space. The Minister asked my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) for specific things that need to be done. Well, an advertising ban is very specific.
Alex Cunningham
No, I will not.
Yes, something may change in the future, but we need action now. I think the Immigration Minister would probably agree with us—he had the cartoon characters in a detention centre painted over because they were too welcoming and attractive. I will not condone that callous approach to children by the Immigration Minister, but I am sure he would agree that such attractive things should be removed from vape advertising and packs.
I well remember my original ten-minute rule Bill and other Back-Bench Bills to outlaw smoking in cars with children present. Ministers refused to back the measure, even though 600,000 children every day had to share their driver’s smoke. Three years later, the Health Minister, the then MP for Battersea, proposed her own amendment. To be fair, she did acknowledge my work and that of organisations such as the British Lung Foundation, Action on Smoking and Health, and Fresh. The Minister said then that the Government were following the evidence, but there had been years of it, and we do not need any more evidence for the Secretary of State to follow in relation to the advertising of e-cigarettes. It is already plain to see.
Peter Gibson
The hon. Gentleman is making an impassioned speech, which includes a great deal of discussion about advertising. Would he care to comment on the advertising for vapes on London buses?
Alex Cunningham
That is an interesting question. I would not personally want to see the advertising of vapes on London buses, particularly if they appeal to children.
It has been plain that manufacturers are directly targeting young people. I do not know whether gummy bears and Skittles are akin to the claimed glamour and sophistication of cigarettes, but the advertising is promoting a product with the kind of modern images that appeal to youngsters. We must not forget that e-cigarettes have their place, but that is as an adult quitting aid, not a child’s toy or sweet substitute.
In my area, North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust now includes vapes as part of its adult in-patient tobacco dependency treatment service. Vapes are offered as part of a wider toolkit of treatments available to those who smoke on admission to hospital, alongside nicotine replacement therapy and specialist behavioural support. Patients are provided with support to remain smoke-free during their hospital admission, and following discharge home. Reducing exposure to second-hand smoke has been a priority of mine for many years, and led to that ban on smoking in cars with children present in 2015.
We have known for a long time that breathing in tobacco smoke concentrated in enclosed places is harmful, and at its worst deadly, particularly when children are involved. For parents and carers addicted to nicotine, replacing cigarettes with vapes can substantially reduce the risks to their children. However, promoting vapes to adults as a quitting aid should not go hand in hand with the dreadful marketing of vapes to children. Requiring standardised packaging for vapes is essential, and the Government can be reassured that that has strong public and political support. Indeed, it may not be a political issue, because Members across the House support it. The overwhelming majority of the public would like us to go further and ban all advertising and promotion in shops, which is currently unregulated.
When I walk into shops in my local constituency—I am sure I am not alone in this—e-cigarettes are promoted everywhere. As others have said, vapes are thrust in children’s faces in all kinds of shops, at the till or by the sweets, which is totally unacceptable. When the Government respond to the consultation on youth vaping in the autumn, I urge them to commit to bringing forward legislation to ban not just the child-friendly branding of vapes, but their in-store promotion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish said, we must not forget the issue of smoking itself, which is still the leading cause of premature death and inequalities in healthy life expectancy across society. Smoking does not just damage people’s health; it undermines our nation’s productivity, costing more than £20 billion a year to our public finances for health, social care and social security.
I know that the Minister is committed to achieving the Government’s smoke-free 2030 ambition, and I welcomed the measures announced earlier this year to support smokers to quit with free vapes, and to provide additional support to help pregnant smokers quit. However, those were only a tiny proportion of the measures recommended by the independent review that the Government commissioned from Javed Khan, to provide advice on how to achieve the smoke-free ambition. Indeed, the funding was only a quarter of that called for by Javed Khan, and the commitment was for only two years. Meanwhile, big tobacco continues to make extreme profits by selling highly addictive, lethal products. A levy on the industry is popular, feasible, and supported by voters of all political persuasions, as well as by the majority of tobacco retailers. The manufacturers have the money, and they should be made to pay to end the epidemic.
In a debate in the House on 20 June on the smoke-free 2030 ambition, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) asked the Minister to explain how, when and where the Government will find the additional funding needed to deliver that ambition without a commitment to a levy on tobacco manufacturers. He received no answer, so I hope the Minister will answer that question today. Finally, I ask again: will the Minister bring forward the necessary legislation to end the child-targeted advertising of e-cigarettes? Ministers know that is the right thing to do.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Twenty-nine years ago I handed in my dissertation for my degree. It was focused on tobacco advertising, and the very arguments being made today by the industry were being made back then as to why it was so important that advertising should not be prohibited further. That is why today’s debate should be as much about the business model, driven by the industry, as about the harm from these products to children and young people. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) on bringing this motion before the House, because the timing is so important. Some 30% of children and young people across Yorkshire have already tried vaping and we know, as we move into that summer period, that more and more children will be socialising outside of school time, and those risks will go up, as will the number of adults we see vaping.
I was honoured to sit on the Health and Social Care Committee as we took evidence from the industry, health professionals and an articulate headteacher talking about their experiences. What I have to say back is that over the past 29 years, we have seen an industry that has become far cannier in how it advertises and markets its products than it was in yesteryear. The situation calls on the Government to step up and be far cannier in being able to expediently put in place the full range of measures that we know will have an impact on the number of young people taking up vaping.
We welcome the reduction in the number of children smoking cigarettes, and we have seen that important shift over the decades. We know the measures that have levered that in—increasing the cost has certainly had an effect, and making smoking less accessible and less attractive has had an impact—but what also needs to be learned is that the very mechanisms put in place around cigarettes need to be applied immediately to vaping, too.
If we look at some of the measures introduced over the past 20 years, we have seen the billboards taken down along with newspaper and magazine advertising, the removal of tobacco from promotions, its removal from sport, its access taken away in shops, the shutters put down, vending machines taken away and these products being put out of use. There were also important public health measures to move away from indoor smoking and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) has just said, smoking in cars where there are children. We also had that important intervention on plain packaging, which we know Israel and Finland have already introduced for e-cigarettes. There is therefore no reason for a delay here.
The industry is using every reason it can consider as to why it needs to continue using advertising. I cross-examined the industry at the Select Committee. To summarise some of the exchange, we were discussing why Blackburn Rovers had those products on the shirts of the heroes of that town. The industry was saying, “It’s really important that we distract people from tobacco products on to our products, because that is our public health measure.” I challenged back and said, “Why don’t you have public health messaging on those shirts instead?” Of course, they argued that that would not work, because they wanted to draw in the next generation of people to use their products. That is what the industry has always been about: it is about generating profit for its shareholders. When it did that with tobacco-based products, ultimately its customers died. That was not the best business model it could induce. With vaping, the industry wants to make sure it has a continuous stream of addicts, and we need to understand that business model to introduce the public health measures needed around harm reduction.
If we look at the figures, we see that a YouGov survey showed that of the 3.6 million adults who are vaping, 2 million are ex-smokers who have now returned to using a nicotine-based product, 1.4 million are current smokers and 200,000 have never smoked and are vaping. Another survey showed that of the people who were vaping, only 47% were also smokers, and 53% were not. We can deduce from that that the reach of these measures and the availability of vaping products means they are being used far beyond the purposes that Public Health England intended and that Javed Khan put in his report to reduce people’s use of tobacco-based products. As a result, we are seeing more people drawn into an addictive habit, addicted to nicotine and able to use it more regularly and with far more availability. They are therefore taking on higher quantities of this drug, and we are seeing the consequences of that.
The call for taking all the same measures currently in place for cigarettes is therefore vital. ASH and others recommend putting an excise tax of £5 on the product, and we will need to adjust the cost of cigarettes in line with that to ensure that they remain less attractive. We need to ensure that we have investment in the trading standards workforce to address the illicit trade we see in counterfeit products, with the dangers they cause. On branding, it is very clear that plain packaging is required. We must remove the cartoons, the sweet names, the colours and the flavours that are currently being propagated. We must also ensure that promotion is not possible in any sphere. Ultimately, we need to ensure that these products are used only for harm reduction and take that really important whole approach to public health as opposed to looking at one product or another.
We have got to question why young people are taking up the use of nicotine. Yes, there is peer pressure—of course, we understand that, and that is really important. We heard about how children discuss the different flavours and try them out, using the product more and more as a result. Yes, there is the power of advertising—why else would companies advertise but to attract custom? But why is it that young people need a dependency on a drug? We need to get to the heart of that question through a wider public health approach. I am very disappointed that the Government have pulled away from some of their public health strategies, including the health disparities White Paper and bringing forward a more holistic approach to public health. Ultimately, we have got to protect young people from becoming the addicts of the future. That is the role of this Parliament
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in what has been a largely consensual debate. We have heard from colleagues across the House about the growth in the number of children who are vaping, concerns about physical and mental health impacts, the disruption to education and the drain on staff time in schools.
The Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), spoke of the evidence that the Committee has heard on the impact of vaping on the education of students, including interruptions to exams. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) highlighted the ongoing prevalence of smoking and the need for further work to tackle illegal tobacco sales as well as work to tackle vaping. The right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) spoke about the important role of vapes in smoking cessation. There is no disagreement from the Opposition on that. I am not so grateful to her for taking me back to the revolting smoke-filled environment of the toilets in my secondary school in the 1980s, which is a memory that I had long since sought to banish.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) spoke about the need for better enforcement of the existing age verification regulations regarding vapes. The hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) highlighted the sophistication of the packaging, design and presentation of vaping products in retail outlets and how attractive that makes them. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), who has a long track record of work on this issue, highlighted the extent of the evidence on vaping that is already available to the Government. The hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) highlighted the impact of disposable vapes on the environment and the increase in plastic pollution. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mrs Hamilton) spoke from her experience as a former nurse and highlighted the serious problem of vaping equipment being used to distribute more dangerous substances by young people.
The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), who spoke from her extensive work on this subject, highlighted concerns about the accuracy of data on the safety of vaping. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) spoke about work in his constituency that shows it is possible for retailers to take a different approach to vapes. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) highlighted the Government’s failure to act on advertising. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) spoke about the lessons that can be learned from the anti-smoking measures that have been so successful as well as the need to recognise this issue as one of addiction and to locate it in the wider landscape of the addiction economy.
Vaping has shifted from a smoking cessation tool to a recreational activity in its own right, driven by the rapacious desire of tobacco companies—which fund many of the largest vape suppliers—to keep making a profit from the highly addictive substance of nicotine. The growth in the use of vapes by 11 to 15-year-olds has been rapid, increasing by 50% in the past three years. One in five 11 to 15-year-olds in England used vapes in 2021. The figure will be higher now.
The important role of vaping in smoking cessation has led to a widespread perception that it is a harmless activity, rather than a less harmful activity than smoking. Last year, 40 children were admitted to hospital for suspected vaping-related disorders. Young people using e-cigarettes are twice as likely to suffer from a chronic cough than non-users. There are reports that nicotine dependency contributes to cognitive and attention deficit conditions, and worsened mood disorders.
Dr Caroline Johnson
The brain develops gradually over time, and is thought to continue developing in people until they are 25. Some countries have different age limits for different things. Does the hon. Member think that 18 is the right age limit for vaping?
Helen Hayes
The hon. Member speaks from her experience on this issue. We have set out a motion containing some immediate actions that the Government can take, which are well-evidenced, particularly from the approach taken to combat smoking. I agree that the Government should look urgently at other aspects of the regulatory framework on vaping, some of which we have heard about today.
Vaping products are marketed directly to children, named after sweets such as gummy bears, Skittles and tutti frutti, in brightly coloured packaging decorated with cartoon characters. There is also evidence, including from research undertaken by one of my constituents who I met during evidence week last week, of the burgeoning growth in vaping among 18 to 25-year-olds, almost entirely unrelated to smoking cessation. A new generation of vaping products has been designed to be desirable objects in their own right. If action is not taken to tackle the accessibility of vaping to children, we can only expect vaping among young adults to continue to grow.
Maggie Throup
The hon. Member talks about children and 18 to 25-year-olds. What age does she think is appropriate to ban vaping—16, 18 or 25?
Helen Hayes
The current law prohibits the sale of vapes to under-18-year-olds. We are not proposing a change in the law on the prohibition of sale. I was simply highlighting that young people grow, and those who become addicted to vaping under the age of 18 are much more likely to carry that addiction into young adulthood. That was the point that I was seeking to make. We can expect a pipeline of young people becoming addicted to vaping, which may stay with some of them for the rest of their lives.
This Government have been asleep at the wheel on children and vaping. They had the opportunity to vote for measures to protect children from vaping last year but failed to do so. The measures that the Minister has announced most recently are better late than never, but are simply inadequate to the task. ASH is clear that while educating young people on the risks of vaping through a new resource pack for schools is welcome, the evidence suggests that education alone will not stop children from vaping.
There is substantial evidence on what worked in reducing smoking rates among children. In 1982, when England first started monitoring smoking rates among children, just one in five children was a current smoker. Eighteen years later in 2000, the proportion was exactly the same—not because children were not educated about the dangers, but because adolescents are risk takers. Between 2000 and 2021, smoking rates among children fell from 19% to just 3%—not because of better education or enforcement but because the regulatory framework during that time ratcheted up year by year. Under the last Labour Government, all point of sale advertising and display of tobacco was prohibited. A comprehensive anti-smuggling strategy was implemented by HMRC and the UK Border Force, which dramatically reduced sales of illicit tobacco, and cigarettes were put in standardised packaging, with all the brightly coloured glamourised packaging removed.
What is true for the strategy to tackle smoking is true for the challenge of vaping. Without much tougher regulation, we will not succeed in driving down vaping among children and young people. Regulations on packaging, advertising and labelling are essential. Labour is calling on the Government to ban vapes from being branded and advertised to appeal to children, and to work with local councils—
Peter Gibson
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She has taken a number of interventions from colleagues. The motion refers to children. The shadow Minister commented that there is no proposal, under a Labour Government, to change the age of 18 for purchasing tobacco. By process of elimination, does the word “children” in the motion refer to anyone under the age of 18? Will she clarify that point?
Helen Hayes
I am sure Members across the House do not need much help from me to identify the definition of a child in law as being a person under the age of 18. I will simply move on from there.
What I will say about the motion is that it sets out measures over which I think there can be no disagreement. There can be no disagreement about advertising targeted at children. Measures to deal with packaging that appeals to children could be introduced right now and would have a direct impact on the very alarming numbers of children and young people who are vaping. This has been a very consensual debate, which has acknowledged and set out some of the complexities around the issue, as well as some areas where the Government should be looking at additional regulations and the wider regulatory framework around vaping. I do not think there is disagreement on that either. What we are setting out today is immediate action that is long, long overdue. Frankly, we struggle to see why the Government have been dragging their heels, refusing to act and not accepting these measures.
As I said, Labour is calling on the Government to ban vapes from being branded and advertised to appeal to children, and to work with local councils and the NHS to help ensure that e-cigarettes are used as an aid to stop smoking, rather than as a new form of smoking and addiction. It is inexplicable that the Government are resistant to those entirely proportionate and evidence-based proposals. If they will not act to protect children and young people, the next Labour Government certainly will.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
I thank the many right hon. and hon. Members who have made a valuable contribution to this afternoon’s debate. I will respond to the issues they have raised throughout my remarks.
I will start, without dismissing many of the concerns we have heard, by reiterating the importance of vapes in helping smokers move to healthier alternatives than cigarettes. Vapes are helping us to reach our smokefree 2030 target. There are currently about 3.5 million vapers in England, 47% of whom are ex-smokers and 39% of whom are dual users. The best thing, obviously, is for a smoker to stop smoking completely, but as shown in the recently published “Nicotine Vaping in England” report, there is clear evidence that vapes are substantially less harmful to health than smoking. With around 3 million users, vapes have become the most popular quitting aid in England and evidence indicates that they can help smokers to quit, particularly when combined with additional support from local stop smoking services.
That is why, in April this year, the Government announced a range of new measures to meet our smokefree 2030 ambition and reduce youth vaping. We have 1 million smokers who will be encouraged to swap their cigarettes for vapes through a new national “swap to stop” scheme, the first of its kind in the world. Pregnant women will be offered financial incentives, in the form of vouchers, to help them to stop smoking, alongside behavioural support. We will also consult on introducing mandatory cigarette pack inserts with positive messages and information to help people quit smoking. It is important to point those out, as the hon. Members for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) and for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) did.
Mary Glindon
Will the Minister confirm that the statement made in the 2015 evidence update by Public Health England, that vaping is 95% safer than smoking, remains valid today?
Maria Caulfield
I thank the hon. Lady for that point, which my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) also raised. The 2015 evidence study was indeed conducted by Public Health England. The most recent evidence we have, from 2022, does not give that precise figure; it does emphasise that vaping is safer than smoking, but does not indicate by how much.
As the debate has made clear, despite vaping’s effectiveness as a tool to quit smoking, illegal under-age vape sales are a growing concern for many parents and teachers across the country, and vaping has increased rapidly among under-18s in the past 18 months. The recent rise in teenage users shows that vapes are being used beyond their intended audience. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) highlighted, there are multiple reasons for that, but whether it is packaging, naming or flavouring, the unintended consequences are clear. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) pointed out, these consequences are not necessarily easy to deal with, as there may be unintended consequences of doing so—for example, tax increases on vapes might prevent people who want to give up smoking from doing so. There are no easy solutions, so we need to take our time before making further decisions. That is why in April we launched a call for evidence on youth vaping. It closed last month, and officials at the Department have begun to examine the responses. We will set out our response in the autumn.
Other speakers, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) spoke about why it is so important that we consider going further. My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, who speaks with considerable experience, pointed out that this not a party political issue, but a cross-Government matter, with the Department of Health and Social Care dealing with safety, the Department for Education providing advice to children, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport dealing with the role of advertising, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs dealing with the disposable products element. To stop children buying vapes, we also need businesses to comply with existing regulations and to abide by the standards we have set. To help enforcement of the regulations, we have teamed up with enforcement agencies to fund a new illicit vaping unit, which will remove products from shelves and at our borders, and stop the sale of vapes to children.
In May, the Prime Minister announced further measures, including closing a loophole that allows industry to give out free samples; increasing education and supporting designated school police liaison officers’ work to keep illegal vapes out of schools; and reviewing the rules on issuing on-the-spot fines to shops selling vapes to under-18s, as well as the rules on selling nicotine-free vapes to under-18s, to ensure that the rules keep pace with how vapes are being used. To respond to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell), we are also looking at adding lessons on the health risks of vaping as part of the current RSE curriculum review. Those measures will help headteachers and other school leaders to manage vaping on school premises and inform young people about the risks of vaping, with a view to reducing the number of young people who are currently vaping or might be tempted to try it in the future.
As a number of speakers pointed out, we must of course be wary of the environmental impacts, in particular of single-use disposable vapes. Increasing use of these products is leading to their improper disposal. That is why DEFRA is soon to consult on reforming the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations 2013 to ensure that more of this material is properly recycled. We shall continue to work with the sector and industry to help businesses to understand their responsibilities, both to ensure that their environmental obligations are met, and to ensure that products are not marketed to children, are produced to the highest UK standards, and are compliant with our regulations.
I emphasise that until recently our vaping regulations have been effective in keeping rates of vaping among under-18s low, but of course we acknowledge that there are problems and that we have seen an increase in usage, which is why the consultation is about looking into what more we can do.
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
I welcome the consultation to tackle this problem, but will the Minister confirm that any appropriate measures that the Government take to reduce youth access to vapes will not harm our pragmatic science-led approach to ensuring that adults have access to the full range of alternatives to help them to quit cigarettes for good?
Maria Caulfield
That is the balance we have to create. We do not want unintended consequences whereby we reduce the use of vapes in under-18s but also stop their use among those who are quitting smoking. We know from our evidence that vaping is much safer than smoking. For those communities, very often in deprived areas, where there are higher rates of smoking, we do not want the cost of vapes to be prohibitive and for people not to switch to them instead of smoking.
Our current laws protect children by restricting the sale of vapes to over-18s and limiting nicotine content, and there are regulations on refill bottles, tank sizes, labelling requirements and advertising restrictions. It is important that we remember that regulations are in place, and it is important that they are enforced.
Dr Caroline Johnson
The Minister is talking about evidence that vapes are much safer, but I notice that she has not used the 95% figure that is used by the industry. Clearly, the absence of evidence of harm and evidence of the absence of harm are different things, so will the Minister clarify whether she has evidence that vaping devices are much safer? Or does she just not have evidence yet, because they are so new, that they are not dangerous?
Maria Caulfield
The evidence is there that vapes are considerably safer than smoking, and that was borne out in the 2022 report. The 95% figure was not used then, but I think there is a general consensus that, as the chief medical officer has said, vaping is a much safer alternative to smoking cigarettes.
It is important to remember that regulations are currently in place; it is about enforcing them, which is why the Government have introduced the illicit vape enforcement squad to tackle under-age vape sales, as well as the illicit products that young people can access. We are funding that with £3 million of Government funding.
Alex Cunningham
Will the Minister give a timescale for when the Government will introduce plain packaging for vaping products?
Maria Caulfield
As I just said and as the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) said earlier in the debate, the consultation closed only recently. Officials are going through the evidence and will come forward with the results in the autumn and take them forward.
Rachael Maskell
I raised the issue of addiction; although the Minister has said that vaping products are safer, does she agree that if they are drawing more children into addiction, they are clearly not safe in that field?
Maria Caulfield
We have to consider the evidence and that is not necessarily what the evidence says. NHS England is reviewing the number of admissions and incidents that it feels are caused by vaping, so we are gathering the evidence on that. We need to take an evidence-based approach and currently there is not the evidence that there is necessarily an addiction problem. But we do need to keep building the evidence base.
As we have set out today, we are committed to taking strong and assertive action to tackle youth vaping, and we are willing to go further as part of our evidence-based approach. We have to work with all parties and across Government. This is not just a health issue: it is an issue for the Department for Education, for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in terms of advertising, and for DEFRA in respect of how single-use vapes are disposed of.
We are committed to effectively tackling the issue and driving down youth vaping rates, while making sure that vapes are available to smokers as an effective aid to quitting smoking. We are committed to doing all we can to prevent children from starting vaping and we are actively working on ways that we can go further. We will go further in not only protecting children but driving down smoking rates, so that we make a future where people are not damaged by smoking. To meet our smokefree 2030 ambition, we will do all we can to prevent people from starting smoking in the first place and to give people the support that they need to quit.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House is concerned that children are being inappropriately exposed to e-cigarette promotions and that under-age vaping has increased by 50% in just the last three years; condemns the Government for its failure to act to protect children by voting against the addition of measures to prohibit branding which is appealing to children on e-cigarette packaging during the passage of the Health and Care Act 2022 and for failing to bring forward the tobacco control plan that it promised by the end of 2021; and therefore calls on the Government to ban vapes from being branded and advertised to appeal to children and to work with local councils and the NHS to help ensure that e-cigarettes are being used as an aid to stop smoking, rather than as a new form of smoking.
Business without Debate
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During Prime Minister’s questions today, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) asked the Deputy Prime Minister what Emily from Chard, and millions like her, should do when their local dentists surgery closes, leaving them unable to get the care they need. The Deputy Prime Minister advised the people of Chard to vote for the Conservative candidate in the upcoming Somerton and Frome by-election. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] It seems to me that neither the Deputy Prime Minister nor several Members in the Chamber know that Chard is not in that constituency. Chard is in the Yeovil constituency, as the Deputy Prime Minister should have known given that he campaigned 15 miles from Chard last summer, when he was chairman of the Conservative party.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, which I do not think really is a point of order. He says reference was made to Chard being in another constituency, and he has made that clear. If the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) wants a correction to be made, I am sure he will raise a point of order himself. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) has put his view on the record, and we will now move on.
Summerland Fire: 50th Anniversary
(10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is our duty in Parliament not to hide from the past but to learn from it. The Summerland fire has never before been the subject of a debate in this House and, as we approach the 50th anniversary of the fire, it is time that changed.
I take the House back to 2 August 1973, when my constituent’s life and the lives of so many others changed forever. Heather Lea was enjoying the start of married life with her husband, Reg, while her parents and little sister, June, were on holiday on the Isle of Man, a place that held special memories for them all. Sadly, those memories are all Heather has left, because on that day her mother, Elizabeth, her father, Richard, and her little sister, June, were among the 50 people who lost their lives in the Summerland fire. As we will hear, the disaster could have been avoided yet, despite this fact, the bereaved families are still fighting for recognition and an apology. Sadly, the chances of there ever being justice appear to have long gone. Heather tells me:
“Fifty years is a long time but the burden has never diminished, and it never will.”
The Summerland leisure centre in Douglas on the Isle of Man was state of the art when it opened, two years before that fateful day, and offered a Mediterranean climate in a British seaside resort encompassing a swimming pool, amusement arcades, an underground disco, restaurants and bars. On the evening of 2 August, a fire was started in an unused kiosk on the crazy golf course outside the complex. The kiosk caught fire, collapsing against the exterior wall of Summerland. Due to the materials the architects used in the structure, the fire quickly spread.
The architects of Summerland had opted to use Galbestos in its construction. Galbestos is a plastic-coated metal cladding with limited fire resistance and, in combination with the use of decalin, which burns rapidly, for the internal walls, created the perfect cocktail for a disaster.
The fire broke through the highly combustible surface and burned undetected for a whole 10 minutes before bursting into the ground floor of the leisure building, igniting the Oroglas acrylic panels used on the walls and roof. The open-plan design aided the spread of the fire, with the internal spaces acting as chimneys to spread the fire. The terror that those in the building must have felt is unthinkable; survivors described mass panic, with the building appearing to melt before their eyes. One survivor said:
“There were fireballs coming down. It was like raining fire. There was no way to get away from it.”
The fire was the deadliest on land since the second world war. I realise as I say these words just how difficult it must be for the loved ones of those who were there to hear them.
Just over a month after the disaster, the lieutenant governor of the Isle of Man appointed a commission to investigate the Summerland fire, under its chair, the hon. Mr Justice Joseph Cantley OBE. The Summerland fire Commission identified several factors in the high number of deaths, including the construction of the building and the evacuation process, which was described as “delayed, unorganised and difficult” with a number of exits locked. It became clear that the materials used in the construction were known to be a safety risk. Either through the ignorance of professionals who ought to have known better or as a result of downright deception, they were still permitted for use. It is clear that regulations were bent to allow that to happen. The original inquiry in 1973 refers to the drawings submitted as unclear, with no dimensions and minimal details, including a serious error where the composition of the sixth floor was incorrectly labelled.
Significant changes were then made to the design to keep costs down, which the report said did not illicit any “particular discussion or anxiety’, despite replacing reinforced concrete walls with Galbestos, which was already known to have limited fire- resistance. The planning submissions relating to Summerland contravened a number of building byelaws and failed to meet the requirement that external walls of any building were to have fire resistance of at least two hours and for ceilings to provide adequate protection against the spread of fire. Permitting the use of both Galbestos and Oroglas contravened such byelaws. However, a waiver was agreed, as permitted under the local government building byelaws legislation of 1950.
The inquiry reported that the borough engineer had been orally informed by the architect of the corporation that Oroglas was non-combustible. Although the chief fire staff officer made it clear that Oroglas was combustible and offered no fire resistance, he raised no objection to the planning committee, which was tasked with reaching a decision on the waiver. Correspondence between the various architects made it clear that the design of the centre could not be delivered in any other way, as it said:
“Unless we are granted”—
an Oroglas waiver—
“we shall be in the soup as I cannot suggest an alternative.”
Compensatory safety measures should still have been taken, such as more exits and a sprinkler system, but no sprinklers were installed.
Oroglas was blamed for the disaster. Although it burned with frightening speed, the main culprit was Galbestos, which was used instead of reinforced concrete, but the fire resistance of that material was never even considered. The failure to consider the properties of materials was not isolated to those in the authorities. The decision to substitute decalin for plasterboard without understanding that it was also combustible, thus giving risk to a combustible void, is described by the inquiry as what
“may well have been the biggest single structural contribution to the disaster of the fire”.
Given the time constraints, I am able to provide only a brief overview of the concerns in the processes that resulted in permission being granted to Summerland. However, just from what I have said, it is clear that there were multiple failings across the board, any one of which could have been disastrous on its own; put together, it is sadly all too clear how this tragedy unfolded. Even using the standards of the time, though, it is difficult to see how the judgment of death by misadventure, which the inquiry reached, can stand up to any kind of scrutiny.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I rise on behalf of my constituent Jackie, who came to tell me what happened to her last year. I had not heard about Summerland before, but she was in Summerland with her mother and her best friend. They both died, but she survived. I know that the hon. Gentleman is going to come on to what we can do now, but, having talked about the fire deficiencies, does he agree that 50 years on we need an apology for those deficiencies? Does he agree that we also need an apology for and recognition of the suffering caused to the survivors? Thirdly, and most importantly, does he agree that we should request that the Isle of Man Government have another review of the death by misadventure verdict?
Justin Madders
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and for the support he has given to the campaign. As I will go on to say, the Apologise for Summerland campaign has made those requests, which I will talk about in more detail later in my speech.
Taking the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, death by misadventure equates to an accidental death caused by a risk that is taken voluntarily. The 50 people who lost their lives did not voluntarily walk into a building comprised of materials that offered limited or no fire resistance. They were on holiday and they trusted that those involved in building Summerland would not knowingly have used dangerous materials. They believed that the building they were entering was safe. I do not think there is anyone who would think that that is not a reasonable position to take. That is why, among many other reasons, death by misadventure is such an inappropriate verdict to find.
The lack of clarity over the fire protections and precautions at Summerland is a huge concern. No schedule of the means of escape existed for Summerland. Enclosed staircases had no ventilation. Openings were not all fire-resisting or self-closing and contained materials that were not fire-resistant. The physical shortcomings of the construction were clear, but the organisation of emergency procedures was also sorely lacking. Some members of staff who were part of the “fire-fighting party” were not aware of their membership of it, demonstrating the absence of satisfactory training.
There had also been unapproved changes to the fire alarm system, creating a delay before the alarms sounded and the fire station was alerted. The automatic fire alarm from Summerland alerted the fire service at 8.05 pm. However, the public alarms at the leisure centre were still yet to sound. The inquiry concluded that
“no organised system of staff training existed....no member of the staff was given any duty or any instruction whatsoever as to his or her actions in the event of a fire”.
It is plain to see why there was mass panic when the fire started.
The lack of training is sadly borne out in the events following the discovery of the fire. One of the most startling and troubling parts of the account I have read—it is a very troubling read—is when the organist, who was playing at the time the fire was discovered, was asked to continue playing to prevent panic breaking out. Only two minutes after he was given that instruction, he reported that the fire was clearly visible at the back of the amusement arcade. Evacuation began only at that point, when the flames had become visible to the visitors, causing mass panic and undoubtedly making matters worse.
Around 20 minutes prior to that, staff had been unsuccessful in dealing with the fire or in notifying the fire service via the automatic alarm system. The inquiry concluded that the building, and by inference the lives of those lost, could have been saved if the fire service had been called shortly after it was found that the firefighting efforts of the staff had failed.
While there was some guidance and a document had been drawn up in 1971 in regard to evacuation, knowledge among managers and staff was limited. There was no evacuation procedure in place and drills had not been carried out. Those in management were unclear as to who was responsible, but failed to make enquiries to clarify that. Staff were not properly trained and there was no one exerting overall control. Had there been, the necessary alerts could have been made and evacuation processes could have been carried out. Instead, some exit doors remained locked, despite the fire service complaining to management about this previously; the escalator remained on, preventing a safe means of escape; and the generators failed to provide the emergency lighting that was needed.
The inquiry concluded that there were failures by the Douglas Corporation and the local government board in terms of providing and scrutinising plans and a lack of inter-communication. The choice of architects was also criticised, with the inquiry exposing their lack of scientific understanding and a failure to focus on fire safety. The inquiry said there was a lack of design management and a continual failure to examine the development of plans. That is important, because that could have highlighted the flaws, resulting in errors being identified.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I congratulate him on bringing forward the debate. As it happens, I was in the Isle of Man last week, as a guest of the President of Tynwald and the Speaker of the House of Keys. One of the official guests was a lady called Ruth McQuillan-Wilson, who has written a number of books about the Summerland fire; she herself was a survivor. I want to put on record a tribute to Ruth, who described the events of the evening to me and the events that have subsequently followed, as the hon. Gentleman has outlined.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I echo the support that he has given to the many campaigners who have fought for more than 50 years to bring this matter to light.
The structure, once it was built, did not have proper technical inspections, which would have been yet another stage at which issues could have been raised. The chief fire officer did not consider issues of firefighting on receiving the original plans and was then not consulted on significant changes to those plans. The certification for the building, and indeed the processes in general, are said not to have been stringent or rigorous, and there was an absence of fire safety and evacuation plans.
It was a litany of failings. Despite that, the inquiry concluded that “there were no villains”. I think we can see, beyond doubt, that that conclusion was wrong. There were clear failures in the plans by the authorities, the fire service and the management of Summerland. The inquiry made 34 recommendations, demonstrating how many flaws there were, yet there remains to this day a lack of accountability.
Three young boys appeared before the juvenile court for damage to a kiosk, but apart from that nobody took responsibility or blame—whatever you want to call it—for the failings. I do not know whether it was because there were so many people and organisations that could have been found to be at fault. Perhaps it was the grossly inappropriate finding of misadventure that led to that lack of accountability. Perhaps, given the times that we were in then, accountability was just a little bit harder to find. Whatever it was, once the inquiry finished that was more or less it. Perhaps this failure to hold the authorities or individuals to account is why recognition of the disaster is so limited.
My constituent describes the memorial near to the Summerland site as “insignificant and insulting”, drawing comparisons with a stone bought from a garden centre. She has recently discovered that it is only her family who are mentioned in the remembrance book at the crematorium on the island, and that is only because they paid for their entry in it. I find that disappointing. In fact, I find it appalling and disrespectful. The families lost so much on that day, and recognition of such should not be reliant on payment. That is something that we expect and hope will change.
The original memorial was replaced with something more fitting in 2013, on the 40th anniversary, but we must question why, for the preceding 40 years, those in charge felt that the loss of 50 people did not warrant a proper memorial that would offer a space for reflection and solace. Heather tells me that even at the memorial event in 2013, the dignitaries who attended failed to approach any of the family members present, which she describes as incredibly hurtful for those visiting the place where their loved ones had perished.
After speaking to Heather and Reg and learning more about the disaster, I approached the Isle of Man Government to ask them whether they would commit to a full inquiry, similar in structure to the Hillsborough inquiry—we have a blueprint that could be followed. I accept that, perhaps, given the length of time that has passed it might be a little bit unrealistic to expect that, but I still expected more than the response I received, which simply directed me to the inquiry of 1973. However, the impending anniversary, and perhaps the publicity surrounding this debate, has perhaps focused minds a little more, as I have this morning received from the Chief Minister an email indicating that there will be a national service of remembrance on 30 July, and that he will be holding a private reception prior to that where he has indicated his wish to hear directly from the survivors and victims’ families. That certainly feels as if he has heard the concerns about what happened at the 40th anniversary. He has also indicated that he will be holding an event to thank those from the emergency services who responded to the fire.
The Chief Minister has also said that he will be making a formal statement about the disaster to the Isle of Man’s Parliament next week. Although we do not know what he will say in that statement, I want to use this debate to encourage the Minister to formally write on behalf of His Majesty’s Government to indicate their support for the requests made by the Apologise for Summerland campaign, which, as we have heard, are a public apology from the Isle of Man Government for the
“disregard for basic fire safety in favour of saving money and speedy construction;
a public apology for
“the pain and suffering for the last 50 years”;
and a public admission that the death by misadventure verdict was inappropriate.
I appreciate that this Parliament cannot tell another Parliament what to do, but I hope that the Minister will be able, diplomatically and sincerely, to make those requests and convey the feelings expressed by Members in the House tonight. It is clear that the conclusions of the inquiry fell short of the standards that we would expect, and fell short of providing genuine accountability. There is a need for an apology from the Isle of Man Government for their role in the disaster.
I hope that the Minister will be able to convey on our behalf that, as we are approaching the 50th anniversary of the disaster, an apology is long overdue. The knowledge of the bereaved families that the loss of their loved ones could have been avoided is still incredibly painful, but the fact that their deaths are still legally categorised as misadventure only exacerbates that pain. I pay tribute to the bereaved families, who have never given up their fight for justice; to the Apologise for Summerland campaign for all that it has done to give a voice to the families; and to Grenfell United, which is standing side by side with the Summerland families. Grenfell United has said:
“The similarities between Summerland and Grenfell are chilling”.
We will never know whether true accountability for Summerland might have prevented the Grenfell tragedy from happening. Sadly, there are far too many what ifs, which must torment all involved. I will finish with a few words from Heather, which echo that point. She says:
“We don’t feel that it’s ever been recognised that 50 people lost their lives. I’ve lost 50 years of having my sister…It was a fire that should never have happened. I feel so sorry for the people of Grenfell. If the reports had been acted upon from the Summerland fire, Grenfell probably wouldn’t have happened. You can’t brush something like that under the carpet anymore.”
I hope that following today’s debate we can build on the cross-party support that we have had to date, and that through the advocacy of the UK Government, families will receive the recognition, apology and accountability that they deserve. I appreciate that the passage of time makes true accountability difficult, but I am certain that they deserve better than they have had so far.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) on securing this important debate. Much of what I will put on record he has clearly laid out, with commendable passion for the constituents he represents.
The fire broke out on the evening of Thursday 2 August 1973. It was, as the hon. Gentleman said, a horrific and tragic incident. I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that our thoughts are with the friends and families of those who lost their lives, and with the survivors who still retain vivid memories of the tragedy and their loss, as both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) have clearly said.
I reiterate and put on record that the leisure centre, which opened in 1971, was deemed to be the most innovative indoor entertainment centre in the world. It was described as a “climate-controlled megastructure” and was the first of its kind in the world. However, as the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said, the building was clad in Oroglas, a highly combustible and transparent acrylic sheeting, and Galbestos, a corrosion-resistant steel sheeting. Those materials were not compliant with the Isle of Man’s fire regulations at the time, which stated that
“external walls of any building shall be non-combustible throughout and have fire resistance of two hours”.
It was later established that the fire was caused by an accidentally discarded lit match or cigarette at a kiosk on the outdoor terrace at 7.40 pm. The initial blaze was detected by staff, who tried to extinguish it. Unfortunately, they had not realised that the fire had already broken through the wall of the Summerland leisure centre, spreading across the wall’s interior, which ignited the flammable acrylic sheeting covering the building. As the hon. Gentleman said, the attempt to evacuate the building began only when visible flames appeared through a vent. By that time, the fire was already out of control, and many people were trapped inside, unable to escape. Forty-eight people lost their lives that night, with two more later dying of their injuries, and at least 80 others were injured. The Summerland fire is the worst disaster in Manx history, and remains the third-worst loss of life from fire on land in the British Isles since the second world war.
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Isle of Man is a self-governing jurisdiction that is not part of the UK. It was therefore the Isle of Man’s then lieutenant governor, His Excellency Sir Peter Stallard, and not a Minister of the UK Government, who established a public inquiry known as the Summerland fire commission on 3 September 1973. He appointed a three-man commission to inquire into the circumstances of, and leading up to, the fire at the Summerland leisure centre, and to make recommendations.
The commission included Mr Justice Cantley, a presiding English judge and a former judge of appeal on the Isle of Man; Mr Philip Wilson-Dickson, second in command of the UK Home Office fire inspectorate; and Professor Denis Harper, the head of the department of building at the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology. Sir Peter appointed Mr Justice Cantley to be chairman of the commission and Mr Carter, of the Government Office, Isle of Man, to be its secretary. The commission’s work was finished in February 1974 and its 40,000-word report, published in May of that year, found that, as I have already noted, neither Oroglas nor Galbestos complied with the Isle of Man’s fire regulations. The report deemed the tragedy to be the result of a series of human errors.
I know that constituents of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston lost loved ones that night, and constituents of other hon. Members will also be remembering friends and family affected by that wholly avoidable disaster. It is right that we remember the Summerland fire in the House today as we approach the 50th anniversary. It is also important that those in positions of authority in relation to such matters do all they can to ensure that fires on the scale of Summerland do not happen again. The Summerland fire commission urged the immediate revision of theatre regulations and drastically changed the whole approach to fire safety on the Isle of Man.
As we approach the 50th anniversary of the Summerland fire, it is important that we remember those affected by the tragedy. The Deputy Chief Minister of the Isle of Man, Jane Poole-Wilson, has announced plans for a series of commemorations to mark the anniversary. These will include a national service of remembrance, a service at the Kaye memorial garden, and a formal presentation to the emergency and health services. The Isle of Man’s Chief Minister, Alfred Cannan, will also be making a statement on the subject of the 50th anniversary to the Tynwald, the Isle of Man’s Parliament, next Tuesday, 18 July.
The commemorations will be an opportunity for the island community to come together to pay its respects to those who were affected by the disaster and to remember the victims. I am sure there will be people living in the UK, perhaps constituents of the hon. Gentleman or indeed of other hon. Members present in the Chamber, who will wish to join the commemorations. I should add that, in addition to those events, Culture Vannin and Manx National Heritage will be hosting online exhibitions and oral history projects as part of the commemorations, which will provide a valuable record of the disaster and help to ensure greater awareness of the Summerland tragedy, not least among younger generations.
The Summerland fire was a horrific tragedy that claimed the lives of 50 people and injured many more. As we approach the 50th anniversary of that awful night, it is important that we remember the victims and the lessons that can be learned from this tragedy. We must never forget the victims of the fire, and we must ensure, as far as we can, that something like that never happens again.
I happen to be going to the Isle of Man tomorrow as part of my regular engagement with the Crown dependencies. I will ensure that this debate and the comments of hon. Members are conveyed to the Chief Minister, who I am sure will take very seriously the comments made in the Chamber tonight.
Question put and agreed to.
Deferred Divisions
Draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2023
(10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2023.
It feels like only yesterday that we were talking about immigration. This draft fees order sets out the immigration and nationality functions for which a fee is to be charged, and the maximum amount that can be charged for each such function. Within the order, we propose a number of changes that will facilitate major Government policy, play an important part in the simplification of our fees structure and allow the Home Office to make vital decisions to ensure that the migration and borders system functions properly and is adequately funded.
I will go into more detail on each of the changes that we propose. To summarise, however, the draft order will: set a power to charge a fee for an electronic travel authorisation, or ETA, and set the maximum fee that can be charged for an application; increase the maximum fee that can be set for visa visits, certain applications for entry clearance and leave-to-remain visas, certain nationality products and services, and priority services; introduce a power to charge a fee for a contact-point meeting with endorsing bodies on the innovator founder route, and set the maximum fee that can be charged; introduce a power to charge a fee for the new “sponsor a worker” function; and remove certain fees relating to biometric enrolment, transfer of conditions, and the replacement and amendment of biometric documents in certain circumstances.
At the outset, it is important to be clear that the fees charged by the Home Office for immigration and nationality applications are an essential part of the Home Office’s funding settlement. Our aim is to reduce the burden of operating the system on the taxpayer and the draft order plays a key role in that, by providing flexibility to adjust fee levels across all immigration and nationality routes through separate legislation. Without that flexibility, it is not possible for the Home Office to take a balanced approach to setting fees. It is therefore vital that the maximum amounts set out in the fees order allow appropriate choices to be made on individual routes to support a balanced approach overall, avoiding the potential for increases to fall disproportionately on routes where there is flexibility to adjust fee levels.
Turning to the changes we propose to the fee maxima, the figures set in the draft order act as a ceiling beneath which the Home Office is able to make changes to fee levels, by separate legislation and seeking agreement across Government. In the majority of cases, we have not made changes to fee maxima since this order was last laid in 2016. I am sure Members will agree that it is prudent to keep those maxima under review to ensure that the order continues to support our fees and funding objectives. The changes we propose, which are accompanied by an economic impact assessment, will provide the necessary flexibility to make changes to fee levels where they are required to ensure the sustainability of our migration and borders system.
The actual fee levels charged to those seeking to enter or remain in the United Kingdom are not changing under the draft order; any changes to the fee levels will be made through separate legislation and will again be accompanied by a full economic impact assessment.
Members will be aware that the UK is launching an ETA scheme that will strengthen the security of our border and support our wider ambition to digitise the UK border. Such a scheme will be a familiar concept for the majority of international travellers and is in line with the approach taken by many of our international partners, such as the EU and the United States.
In the written ministerial statement I made on 6 June, I outlined our intention to set a fee of £10 for each application on initial roll-out of the scheme. The draft order plays a key role in that process by providing a power to charge a fee for the scheme and setting the maximum fee that can be set by the Home Office for each application. To be clear, although we have announced our intended fee level of £10, the fee cannot be set through this order. We will set the fee formally in regulations that will be subject to approval by Parliament later this year.
We are continuing with the simplification of our fee structure, which includes those fees that have become increasingly redundant as part of the wider transition to digital evidence of immigration status or are no longer required to support wider policy objectives. As such, we will remove the chargeable function for biometric enrolment for all remaining instances of the £19.20 fee in the fees regulations, reducing the number of fees that customers are required to pay in relation to an application.
With all new customers applying in-country now issued with a biometric residence permit or a digital status, the £161 fee charged in-country for a transfer of conditions for those with limited leave to remain is largely obsolete. The removal of this fee reflects that this application is made by those seeking to upgrade legacy documents to a biometric residence permit.
We are removing the fee to amend details on physical documents such as name, sex marker, nationality and photograph, and for those with limited leave to remain. That will bring these customers in line with those who are issued digital status and those with indefinite leave to remain, who are not charged a fee to make this sort of amendment.
We will no longer charge a fee for a like-for-like replacement of a biometric residence permit where the document has expired. That will primarily benefit those with indefinite leave to remain, whose cards have a maximum 10-year validity, with most due to expire in 2024.
The final changes we propose in this order will ensure that the subsequent fees regulations are aligned with wider policy changes being made within the migration and borders landscape. Under new arrangements being rolled out as part of broader reform to the innovator route, checkpoint meetings will be required between an endorsing body and the individual applicant to assess progress against their business plan. The maximum fee for these meetings is being set at £500. The fee for each assessment will be £500 and will be set in regulations in the next year, ahead of these meetings being chargeable in April 2024.
The current sponsorship scheme is being reformed, with the existing system of certificates of sponsorship being phased out and replaced with the “sponsor a worker” scheme. That will happen in stages, with a limited test in 2024, during which both the certificates of sponsorship and “sponsor a worker” scheme will operate side by side. The amendment we are making in this order will facilitate that change, providing a maximum fee to be set at the same level as the certificate of sponsorship, which is £300.
The changes we propose through this order are vital to provide enough flexibility to amend fee levels with the approval of Parliament, to ensure that the system is sustainable. I am grateful for Members’ support. The changes we are making will ensure the sustainability of our immigration and border system, while setting appropriate levels of fees for those entering or choosing to remain in the United Kingdom.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Robert, and I thank the Minister for his opening remarks. Following the passage of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 and related changes to the immigration rules in March this year, this order is the next stage of a lengthy process to implement the Government’s planned electronic travel authorisation system. Ministers have set themselves the ambitious target to begin issuing ETAs to people from Qatar and other Gulf states this autumn and for the scheme to be fully operational by the end of next year.
With respect to the new ETA system, the scope of this order is limited to fees to be charged and requirements for applicants to submit biometric information. A number of the most important issues about how the scheme will work and what impact it will have are left for another day. Nevertheless, while we are here, I would like to put a few questions to the Minister on issues where further detail about the Government’s plans would be of great assistance to Members, to ensure that the process is being adequately managed and scrutinised.
The new ETA system is a major undertaking, and its effects will be wide ranging. Significant numbers of UK-bound travellers who do not need a visa will be required to obtain formal clearance to enter the UK for the first time. Whether or not the system will function as it should depends, to a substantial degree, on the effectiveness of new technologies that are still in development. That is an important point, not least because the history of Departments and major IT projects is not a particularly happy one.
In this case, the ETA system will require applications to be made, and eventually biometric information to be submitted, online or via a new app, which has yet to see the light of day. The Government say that even the decision-making process may be automated. That will take highly sophisticated technologies, and robust testing will be essential before the new system comes online. Can the Minister therefore provide an update on what progress has been made with the development of those technologies to date, and whether he believes that the Home Office is currently on track to meet the deadlines that it has set for the roll-out of those changes?
If we look beyond the administration of the new system, there are serious questions about its potential impacts, especially on the tourism sector and the wider economy, including how travel across the border with Ireland might be affected. As things stand, I have yet to be convinced that Ministers are taking adequate steps to address the concerns raised by stakeholders and to mitigate any unintended consequences.
With regard to tourism, the impact assessment published alongside this order recognises that it is reasonable to expect a fall in tourist numbers once the ETA has been implemented, and revenues can be expected to decrease as a result. Concerns about the implications for cross-border travel between Northern Ireland and the Republic are especially acute in this sector. However, the impact assessment fails to capture the different effects that the ETA may have across the UK’s different nations and regions. That is a significant oversight and one that I hope Ministers intend to address.
Will the Minister therefore set out what steps the Home Office plans to take to mitigate any adverse effects on the tourist trade that these changes may have across the UK—including but not limited to the effects in Northern Ireland? Given that we are dealing with an order that addresses fees, can the Minister tell us what consideration the Government have given to the potential merits of ringfencing some of the income generated from applicants’ fees as a means of providing financial support to any businesses that may find themselves struggling with the transition?
Alongside the measures pertaining to ETAs, this order makes changes to the maximum fee levels applicable to a range of UK visa routes. For the most part, the proposed increases are relatively modest. The notable exception is for student visas. At present, applicants cannot be charged more than £490, but the order would increase the maximum fee to £600. That equates to a more than 20% increase on the current level, with significant potential implications for international student numbers. As the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in the other place has noted, the scale of the increase is particularly striking when measured against the actual cost to the Home Office of processing those visas, which is less than half of what the applicants have to pay.
The Government’s impact assessment for the student visa fee increase acknowledges that this potential change is likely to have significant knock-on effects on the number of visas granted to international students and, as a result, the revenue from tuition fees, on which so many of our leading universities remain reliant. On the face of it, that appears to be in direct contradiction to the strategy of the Minister’s colleagues at the Department for Education, which—the last time I checked—was to increase the overall number of international students. Whether this is more an example of poor Government co-ordination or whether increasing application fees is part of a new, deliberate strategy overall to reduce the number of student visas is unclear to me. Again, any light that the Minister can shed on what otherwise looks to me like some fairly muddled thinking between different Departments would be much appreciated.
I thank the Minister and look forward to his comments.
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his support for many of the measures in this package—in particular, the ETA, which is an important long-term project for the United Kingdom that will go a significant way to improving our border security and bring us in line with many other developed countries. I said in my opening remarks that all of us who travel to the United States, for example, will have long been familiar with its equivalent. It is right that the UK now produces its own version. We are not alone in this. The European Union is in the process of developing its version of the ETA, which was due to be rolled out this year. It is likely to be delayed, but we await news from the European Commission. All of us are united in our shared view that it is right that sovereign countries—such as the United Kingdom—should know as much as possible about individuals prior to their arrival on the soil of those countries, and the ETA is the key way in which we do that.
We have chosen to begin later this year with Qatar, which is a small but important partner of the United Kingdom and will enable us to pilot the scheme. After that, a small group of other countries will be included before a wider roll-out next year. As the shadow Minister may be aware, we have chosen to adopt a modest delay to the broader roll-out to ensure that the technology is right, because it is important to the United Kingdom, reputationally and economically, that we get this right and that there are not issues with technology when it is launched.
With regard to the maximum fee of £10, we have considered it very carefully. We want to ensure that that fee meets the true cost of the scheme, which is significant because of the new technology that we are standing up, but also that we are competitive and that we do not put people off, whether they be well-paid business travellers, students or those coming on visit visas or school trips to the United Kingdom, whose income and pockets may not be so deep. We think that £10 is an appropriate level that compares favourably with other countries around the world.
The hon. Gentleman asked an important question about the interface between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland in that regard. That is one of the complexities of launching the ETA, because, as he suggests, it does interface with the common travel area. We have had extensive conversations with the Republic of Ireland and with stakeholders in Northern Ireland. I myself have met with the tourist board to discuss its concerns.
As the hon. Gentleman suggests, those concerns are that international visitors coming in on international flights to the Republic, but looking to do short trips to Northern Ireland—either a day trip or a couple of nights for sightseeing, for golf holidays, or for the various other sources of income from tourism in Northern Ireland—might be deterred as a result of the ETA fee. We conclude that the deterrence is limited, bearing in mind the £10 fee and the simple process. In most cases, it can be done by the individual themselves on a smartphone, or with the help of their travel agent or tour-booking company.
However, we do take those concerns seriously and have worked to try to alleviate them. We will be working on the roll-out to ensure that there is a smooth communication plan with all international tour operators that bring travellers to the island of Ireland. We are also working with some of the other important stakeholders, such as insurance companies, so that they understand the scheme and so that someone who unwittingly crosses the border in a car hired in the Republic does not find themselves in a difficult position should they get into an accident in Northern Ireland without having completed the ETA. I can therefore provide the hon. Gentleman with some assurances that we have given the matter a great deal of thought.
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the Minister, and I am reassured to hear that a great deal of thought has been given. I have also met with members of the Northern Ireland tourist board, and they have expressed extreme concern about this issue. They feel that their marketing strategy is very much based on an all-of-Ireland approach, and the communication of that to potential customers is, they feel, significantly undermined just by this additional measure. It is almost the symbolic nature of it that impacts on their overall marketing strategy. I want to underline that point and urge the Minister to continue that dialogue with the key stakeholders.
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for meeting with stakeholders. I do not want to represent their views, because they remain deeply concerned about this.
However, my point was that we have gone to a lot of trouble both to engage with them and to seek mitigations. The alternatives are not ones that we would consider palatable: not continuing with the roll-out of the ETA; rolling out the ETA only for Great Britain and not for Northern Ireland, which would create a significant security loophole in the ETA and undermine the Union; or, linked to that, imposing some checks at the border between GB and Northern Ireland, and asking individuals who choose to cross from NI to GB to have an ETA and to be willing to show it at that point—again, that is not something that the Government are willing to consider. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman, perhaps with a full explanation of our work with the Republic and stakeholders in this regard.
Lastly, the hon. Gentleman asked about student visa fees. The first point to make is that the fees charged with respect to all these visa and immigration matters are not linked directly to the individual cost of the visas, but to the sustainability of the wider system. We seek to raise sufficient funds that general taxpayers do not fund, or fund to a lesser extent than they would otherwise, our visa and immigration system. There is not a direct link between the cost of any one visa and the fee charged for those reasons.
Furthermore, the policy has been agreed across Government. We worked with the Department for Education, and it supports our proposals. The international education strategy to which the hon. Gentleman referred has been a huge success. It set out a 10-year plan to attract 600,000 students to the United Kingdom, and we met that many years early. Demand for student visas is high, and from the operating data that I have seen—as yet unpublished—it continues to be high. It is not unreasonable to ask international students to pay a higher fee in support the general funding of our immigration and visa system and reduce the cost to the taxpayer of managing the system more generally.
Stephen Kinnock
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee noted that the actual cost to the Home Office of processing the visas is less than half of what applicants have to pay. So that we can have some transparency on how the increased costs were calculated, does the Minister agree with that analysis
Robert Jenrick
I do not have those exact costs to hand, but my point is that it is not right for the taxpayers of this country—with taxes at their current level—to pay yet more to fund our immigration and borders system. It is right that we recover as much of that cost as possible from visitors to the United Kingdom. Of course that is a careful balance, because we want to support the UK being an open country that attracts businesses, tourists and indeed students, but wherever possible, and where it is reasonable, we should try to get that money from international visitors to the UK, rather than leaning yet more on domestic taxpayers.
With that, I thank the members of the Committee for their support this morning. I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2023
(10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (Robert Halfon)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2023.
It is an honour to serve under you, Mr Sharma. The draft levy Order we are here to discuss is for the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board, the skills, standards and qualifications body for the engineering construction workforce of Great Britain. That is not to be confused with the Construction Industry Training Board, otherwise known as the CITB, which is a different industrial training board that is not under discussion today.
The engineering construction industry consists of contracting companies and their supply chain that collectively are responsible for designing, building, maintaining, repairing and decommissioning some of the UK’s most critical national infrastructure, such as conventional and renewable power generation and oil and gas, as well as sectors such as water treatment, pharmaceuticals, food processing, steel and cement. The industry is core to building the infrastructure needed to power the economy and grow our energy independence.
When I spoke at last month’s The Times Education Summit, I set out how I frame the links between education and life outcomes in the field of work through a “ladder of opportunity”. A critical rung on that ladder focuses on technical education and training to meet the needs of employers. That is not just for young people at the start of their career history, but about improving attainment in adult skills across the country and reversing declining participation in adult learning and the workforce. We must strive to ensure that such a ladder is metaphorically available to all, not drawn up, and the drawbridge to life-changing education is not closed due to background or age. Everyone must be able to access the education and skills opportunities that lead to good job outcomes.
The Government are clear that engineering construction is integral to achieving the objectives set out in the “Powering Up Britain” strategy announced in March. However, the industry will need to continue to increase the volume of skilled workers coming into the industry in order to deliver on the key projects needed to achieve our objectives. That includes, but is not limited to, the retrofitting of industrial sites with carbon capture and hydrogen production technologies; the further expansion of offshore wind; and increasing our plans for the deployment of civil nuclear to provide up to 25% of our projected electricity demand by 2050, as envisaged in last year’s “British Energy Security Strategy”. That is where the work of the ECITB is critical. Over the 2023 to 2025 strategy period, the ECITB has committed to allocate up to 48% of its grant funding on new entrants, while the remaining 52% will support the upskilling of existing workers. That is vital to boosting the number of workers entering the industry and gaining the requisite skills required by employers.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
In principle, I welcome the motion that my right hon. Friend is putting forward, as we need to improve skills in all sorts of areas. However, I note that the levy will now raise about £30 million a year. Is my right hon. Friend sure that that amount will not damage the very industries it is meant to help?
Robert Halfon
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Far from damaging the industry, it will actually help the industry, because that £30 million ensures grants, scholarships, training opportunities and skills for all these key industries in engineering construction. I would actually say that that money is a good thing. Do not forget, by the way, that 87% of the members of the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board voted in favour. No one is imposing this on anyone; they voted in favour of the levy.
The draft order will enable the ECITB to raise and collect a levy on employers, as I just described, in the engineering construction industry. It uses the levy to provide targeted training grants to employers to drive up skill levels and incentivise training that would otherwise not take place. The strategy has a clear focus on tackling the shortfall in the number of skilled workers essential to the construction of planned infrastructure projects, including supporting apprenticeships and building on alternative entry programmes such as the ECITB’s scholarship programme and skills bootcamps, as well as upskilling and reskilling programmes for existing workers and those in the allied industries.
The levy will support strategic initiatives to help maintain and develop vital skills in the industry and create a pipeline of skilled workers. Indeed, the ECITB’s strategy has already identified key drivers for change facing the engineering construction industry over the coming decade. Among them is the need to attract more new entrants to replace an ageing workforce and meet demand growth. As part of National Apprenticeship Week in 2017, I took a tour of Hinkley Point C and saw at first hand the work being undertaken to produce a skilled workforce. The ECITB is continuing that work to develop a programme in partnership with EDF to take up to 2,000 unskilled learners through training. Individuals start at a general operative level, with the potential to progress to more skilled roles—for example, in electrical disciplines—with further training. The partnership with industry on skills will give people from all backgrounds a chance to succeed while contributing to the longer-term energy security of the nation.
Before I turn to the details of the draft order, I will highlight that the Department for Education has launched a review of both industry training boards. The review is part of a wider programme across Government to ensure that arm’s length bodies remain effective. Mark Farmer, the CEO and founding director of Cast consultancy, has been appointed to lead the review, which will run until late 2023.
I will turn to the details of the draft order to outline how it will raise the levy. This order is being made to give effect to the levy proposals submitted by the ECITB. Legislation requires the order to set a minimum threshold so as to exempt employers with a small number of employees from the levy. That threshold is set by reference to the annual wage bill of employers. The order is subject to the affirmative procedure and must therefore actively be approved by both Houses before it becomes law. The previous Order, the Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2020, introduced a phased increase to levy rates payable by off-site employees while maintaining the same levy rates for on-site employees across its three levy periods. This three-year levy order seeks to maintain the levy rates prescribed for the third phase of the 2020 order currently in place for each of the next three levy periods and for both off-site and on-site employees. Those rates are 0.33% of the earnings paid by employers to off-site employees and 1.2% of the earnings paid by employers to on-site employees for businesses liable to pay the levy.
The ECITB recognises the budgetary pressures on small businesses, which is why this order seeks to retain the current exemption thresholds. Engineering construction employers with an annual wage bill of less than £1 million for off-site employees will not pay any levy. Employers with an average wage bill of less than £275,000 for on-site employees will also be exempted from paying the levy. It is important to note that these exemptions do not stop employers from accessing the same ECITB support available to levy-paying employers. It is projected that approximately 18% of all employers in scope of the levy will be exempt from paying it.
The ECITB has consulted industry on the levy proposals via the consensus process required under the Industrial Training Act 1982. Consensus is achieved by satisfying two requirements: both the majority of employers likely to pay the levy and those employers who together are likely to pay more than half of the aggregate levy raised must agree that the levy proposals are necessary to encourage adequate training. Both requirements were overwhelmingly satisfied, with 85% of employers in scope of paying the levy and who between them are likely to pay 97% of the aggregate levy being supportive of the proposals of the ECITB. I am delighted to say that that is a significant increase from 2019, achieving a 10% increase for both requirements. The draft order has significant industry support, and it will enable the ECITB to carry out its vital training responsibilities. I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma.
As Members will be aware, the engineering and construction industry is central to delivering our net zero ambitions and crucial to addressing the slow growth that has held back our economy these past 13 years. Companies within the engineering construction industry design, engineer, construct and decommission some of the biggest infrastructure projects both in this country and overseas. I was delighted to get the opportunity—I would certainly recommend it—to visit the interconnector site up in Blyth in Northumberland, where National Grid, which is headquartered in my constituency, has undersea cables come ashore, delivering up to 3% of UK electricity.
UK100 estimates that, by 2050, four of five jobs will be supporting the transition to net zero. It is estimated that there is the potential for 1.18 million new jobs by 2050 in low carbon and renewable energy industries. Apprenticeships will be central to ensuring that workers in the sector have the breadth of skills and knowledge required to take up those roles. The sector will need to attract talent from a variety of pools if it is to match the growth in demand. Therefore, it seems fitting that only last week my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) set out how the next Labour Government, if elected, would reform the apprenticeship levy to ensure the next generation of workers in the sector.
Our proposal is to transform the apprenticeship levy into a growth and skills levy, giving employers the flexibility that they need and, indeed, want. The Minister will no doubt have seen the article earlier this year by the chief executive of Balfour Beatty, who believes that the apprenticeship levy in its current form has “failed” and that a more flexible skills levy would respond better to employer needs. That is exactly what our growth and skills levy would do, alongside ensuring that every penny of the apprenticeship levy is spent on skills and training, which currently does not happen.
Employers will be able to use up to 50% of the growth and skills levy for flexible, high-quality courses for their workforce, together with the 50% they allocate to apprenticeships. In a speech last year replying to a similar SI, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) questioned whether unpaid traineeships in a sector that is already understaffed were the best way to attract new talent. One advantage of the growth and skills levy is that funds can be utilised to offer paid traineeships or similar initiatives as a pipeline into an apprenticeship, thereby diversifying and increasing the pool of skilled talent.
Looking more closely at this draft order, I understand the need for the changes to the ECITB levy being introduced today and we are supportive of them. This year, the ECITB launched its three-year strategy to ensure growth in the engineering construction industry, backed with £87 million to support workforce training alongside tackling labour shortages and skills gaps. The strategy has been designed to prepare for a boom in project activity for engineering construction employers.
Citing National Grid again, I am aware of the plans, as referenced by the Minister, for electrifying the UK economy and how that infrastructure has to be delivered at pace. But these projects span a range of sectors, including nuclear build and decommissioning, renewables, water treatment, and carbon capture projects linked to the UK’s net zero plans. Given that any future Labour Government have pledged to invest heavily in home insulation, double our onshore wind capacity, increase offshore wind capacity, triple solar power by 2030, and invest in tidal power, we welcome all such ambitions.
As the Minister will already know, there is some resentment among larger employers at having to pay both the ECITB and apprenticeship levies, and it is vital that the ECITB levy adds value to businesses and the sector more widely. The Minister will be aware that, under the Industrial Training Act 1982, the maximum levy is set at 1% of an employer’s total emoluments, unless the Minister thinks a higher levy would be appropriate in the circumstances.
I understand that the ECITB has recommended the 1.2%, broadly supported by its members, as the Minister was saying, and I listened to his response to the hon. Member for Lichfield about what the sector might feel when it is under pressure due to the potential cancellation of contracts and a contraction in the UK economy. Perhaps the Minister could elaborate a little bit more on his assessment of the affordability of the 1.2%, given the other cost pressures facing the sector.
My only other point is about the wider skills agenda, which I think is linked to this. The Government’s change in position over BTECs is welcome, and I wondered whether the Minister has analysed how scrapping well-respected BTECs will impact the engineering construction industry. Given that the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), admitted earlier this year that the take-up of the new T-level qualification for construction still falls way behind BTECs, surely this is a matter of utmost urgency.
In conclusion, Labour does not oppose the draft order in its current form, and we support the Government in the hope that this SI has the desired results.
Robert Halfon
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his response. I will start by saying that I fundamentally disagree, as he would expect, with Labour’s proposals to dilute the apprenticeship levy. It would halve the number of apprenticeships because businesses would be using the levy for skills rather than apprenticeships, and the apprenticeship levy does what it says on the tin. It is trying to build an apprenticeship nation. He talked about the budget, but he will know that 99.6% of the apprenticeship budget, which includes the levy that is set by the Treasury, was used over the past year.
The shadow Minister quoted one company that had questions about the levy, but if I had longer, I could give him a range of quotes from companies that are working brilliantly with the levy, such as Amazon, Google and Virgin Atlantic, which recently spoke at the skills conference about how beneficial the levy was to them.
It is worth noting that our engineering manufacturing apprenticeships were up by 24% over the past year. Construction apprenticeships were up 31% over the past year. He talks about paying a the ECITB levy and the apprenticeship levy, but they are very different. They have very different roles. The apprenticeship levy, as I said, is a Ronseal levy—it does what it says on the tin—while the ECITB levy is for used for all kinds of skills training for existing employees, for grants, and for scholarships.
On affordability, I just need to clarify what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield—he is newly knighted, so many congratulations to him; it is much deserved.
Robert Halfon
I declare an interest in that I used to work for him as a junior researcher many, many moons ago in my younger days, so I am very proud of what my former boss has achieved.
Some 85% of employers in scope of paying the levy, that are likely to pay 97% of the aggregate levy between them, supported the proposal. They will know whether they can afford it, and they have voted for it in vast numbers. It is not for me to question the businesses that voted for the levy; it is up to them to decide whether they want to pay it. As I said, the ECITB levy is very different from the apprenticeship levy.
On BTECs, I discussed this with the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), the other shadow skills spokesman, in the estimates debate last week. We are proud about our move towards T-levels, which are going to be world-beating qualifications. We have T-levels in engineering and in construction. As the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington knows, we have had reviews of BTECs and alternative qualifications, and those reviews are continuing. We are getting rid of those alternative qualifications that either have very low uptake or poor outcomes—outcomes that we do not think are good enough or that significantly overlap with T-levels.
However, there is nothing to stop employers getting together to design new qualifications—all our new qualifications are employer-led—that are much more suited for the 21st century and, more importantly, more suited for people getting good outcomes. The whole purpose is to move to T-levels, and we are creating a T-level pipeline of engineering, construction, higher technical qualifications being taught in over 70 institutions up and down the country. That will be expanded.
We are spending £300 million on new institutes of technology—21 across the country. There is the state-of-the-art Rolls-Royce skills institutions in collaboration between FE and higher education, teaching HTQs and degree apprenticeships as well. Then separate to all that—this is again why Labour’s proposal for a skills levy to dilute the apprenticeship levy is wrong—we already are spending billions of pounds on skills, on bootcamps, on the Multiply maths programme, and on the higher technical qualifications that I that I mentioned, including 400 free level-3 courses that millions of people are doing across our country. We will have 60,000 people doing boot camps by 2025. We are doing a huge amount of work on skills and a huge amount of work on apprenticeships, ensuring quality standards, with over half of the 670 in science, technology, engineering and maths. We are doing everything possible to ensure that we are on the right path for skills
In conclusion, I thank the Committee for today’s debate. I reiterate that if the levy were to cease, there would likely be a serious deterioration in the quality of training, creating a deficiency in skill levels and capacity and, crucially, leaving the sector unable to deliver key projects vital to the UK’s economic growth. However, it is not solely up to the levy order to address these issues, our Government continues to be on the front foot, which is why we are building a skills system that is employer-focused, high-quality, fit for the future, and flexible enough to lead to more people completing high-quality courses that meet employers’ needs.
I should also mention the T-level transition year, which is preparing people for our state-of-the-art vocational technical qualifications. Our skills reforms will help to create more routes into skilled employment in sectors the economy needs, such as engineering, digital, clean energy, and manufacturing, so more people can secure well-paid jobs in their local areas. That includes supporting more people to complete an apprenticeship or HTQ, rolling out more T-levels, and establishing our network of 21 institutes of technology. We are also expanding our skills bootcamps and free courses for jobs programme. This enhanced offer for adults will complement apprenticeships.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Equipment and Protective Systems Intended for Use in Potentially Explosive Atmospheres Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2017 (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023
(10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Equipment and Protective Systems Intended for Use in Potentially Explosive Atmospheres Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2017 (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. The purpose of this statutory instrument is to ensure that the Windsor framework, in respect of European Union directive 2014/34/EU, known as the ATEX directive, is properly implemented in Northern Ireland, and to introduce provisions regarding UK(NI) marking.
The ATEX directive aims to prevent equipment or protective systems from becoming sources of ignition in atmospheres that could be explosive if conditions lead to dangerous levels of flammable gases, mist or dust. Settings where these conditions could arise include petrol stations and a range of mainly industrial locations, such as mines, agricultural silos and chemical processing plants. ATEX-compliant handheld radios would, for example, be mandatory for safe communication in environments with potentially explosive atmospheres, where a spark could react with the air to cause an explosion.
There are separate GB and Northern Ireland regulations covering ATEX requirements. The Northern Ireland ATEX regulations—the Equipment and Protective Systems Intended for Use in Potentially Explosive Atmospheres Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2017—were made by the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland, with the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland enforcing them. Currently the Northern Ireland ATEX regulations refer only to the EU market, which no longer includes Northern Ireland.
Conformity assessment bodies perform the vital role of assessing whether specified requirements relating to a product, process, system, person or body are fulfilled, carrying out calibration, testing, certification and inspection activities. For the ATEX directive, as for other directives, there is a system of mutual recognition of conformity assessment bodies, meaning that a given EU country recognises the results from a conformity assessment body located in another EU country.
This system of mutual recognition does not apply to UK conformity assessment bodies, which are now outside the EU. To address that, relying on a derogation in the framework, the UK previously legislated for a new UK(NI) marking to be applied in addition to the CE marking, where goods requiring mandatory third-party conformity assessment have been tested against EU requirements by a UK body. The UK(NI) marking applies when placing such products on the Northern Ireland market.
This instrument makes the necessary amendments to ensure that the Northern Ireland ATEX regulations reflect the fact that the UK has left the European Union. For example, it ensures that references to member states are replaced with an appropriate term that includes Northern Ireland—but not GB—and the European economic area states. It also ensures that information obligations on the UK to inform the Commission and member states apply only to information in respect of Northern Ireland and not the rest of the UK.
The instrument introduces new provisions on the UK(NI) marking into the Northern Ireland ATEX regulations. In line with the Windsor framework, a manufacturer that wants to supply an ATEX product for the Northern Ireland market will need to manufacture that product to EU requirements. If that product requires third-party conformity assessment under the relevant EU legislation, and if a UK conformity assessment body is used to do that, the manufacturer will be legally required to apply the UK(NI) indication, which must accompany the CE or other relevant conformity marking. Failure to comply with this new requirement will be a criminal offence in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Department of Justice has confirmed that the new offence of failure to comply is consistent and proportionate and will not have a detrimental impact on the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland.
As a result of the additional UK(NI) marking requirements, some businesses may incur costs associated with familiarisation with the new requirements and the labelling itself. However, the impacts of these changes are expected to be very limited.
My officials in the Office for Product Safety and Standards will be providing online industry guidance to coincide with this instrument coming into force, to ensure that businesses have all the information they need on how to comply with the new requirements. They are also liaising with the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland, which is responsible for enforcing the Northern Ireland ATEX regulations and ensuring that it has all the necessary information to do so.
In summary, this instrument is needed to ensure that the Windsor framework, with respect to the ATEX directive, is properly implemented in Northern Ireland. It does that by amending the Northern Ireland ATEX regulations to reflect the fact that the UK has left the EU and by introducing provisions on UK(NI) marking. I urge the Committee to approve this SI.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Vickers, and to speak for the official Opposition in this Delegated Legislation Committee debate on the draft Equipment and Protective Systems Intended for Use in Potentially Explosive Atmospheres Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2017 (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023.
I thank the Minister for his speech and for the detail in which he set out this largely technical change, which relates to Northern Ireland. Having listened to his speech and looked at the debate that took place in the other place, I would like to ask him a few questions.
However, I would like to start by reaffirming the Opposition’s support for the Windsor agreement. We welcomed it when it was signed, and we know that it was welcomed by businesses, civic leaders and our international allies. I am proud of the work the Labour party has done over the past 25 years to bring peace to Northern Ireland and of the small role played over a longer period by the Barrow Cadbury Trust, which I chaired, to build and support dialogue across the community divide in Ireland. That was the precursor to peace in Northern Ireland.
The change before us will require some UK businesses to add an additional UK(NI) marker to products that could be used in businesses with certain safety risks, such as petrol stations and fertiliser producers. Although it applies only to Northern Ireland, it will impact businesses based in Britain that export these products to Northern Ireland.
I note that the Government did not run an impact assessment of this change, and nor did they conduct a consultation. I understand from comments made by Lord Johnson in the other place that there is no impact assessment because this change fell under the Windsor agreement and because it is “limited”. However, the Government have said that they have had discussions with 4,000 businesses about the impact of this change. That number suggests quite a wide scope.
That brings me to my second point. The Department estimates that around 5,500 businesses—I think that that figure is right—are impacted by the ATEX regulations. In the words of Lord Johnson,
“some businesses may incur costs associated with…the new requirements and the labelling”
under this SI. The Government state that the estimated cost to businesses is around £2.5 million. If they did not carry out an impact assessment or a formal consultation, how did they reach that cost figure? Is it an annual cost, a recurring cost or a one-off cost? Do the Government know the breakdown by nation or region? Do they know whether very small microbusinesses or small and medium-sized enterprises will be hit by this cost, and, if so, roughly how many?
I ask those questions to ensure that the Government have considered and understood in full the impact on businesses, and that businesses are supported through this change. Now, the Minister may well offer the immortal words that he will write to me with answers to these questions, but they are important, and they should be addressed, preferably today. I know that the Government will be taking steps to inform businesses about the regulations and the changes, through webinars and so on, but I hope they will ensure that businesses of all sizes get the information they need when they need it.
As the Minister said, these are largely technical changes relating to our change in EU membership and the new Windsor framework. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I hope he can address some of these issues in the time I have given him.
The Chair
I can see no one indicating they want to speak, so I call the Minister to respond.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for her important points, and I thank the Committee for its consideration.
On the costs to businesses, the majority of businesses likely to be impacted are SMEs, with micro and small totalling 91% and medium being 8%. Prior UK CA changes were applicable to all businesses, so no business is likely to be impacted more than another.
On the impact assessment, according to the OPSS business population estimates in 2022, 5,445 businesses in the UK were subject to ATEX regulations. As that is an estimate, we provide a 10% upper and lower band, resulting in a high estimate of 5,900 businesses and a low estimate of 4,900. Firms would incur a familiarisation cost in the first year they were made aware of the changes. The cost is around £13,000.
On the points the hon. Lady raised about consultation, where there have been previous, similar instruments in this area, informal consultation did take place with a good cross-section of stakeholders, including trade associations and other industry representative bodies across the product areas covered by the instrument. Stakeholders were supportive of the need to maintain a functioning product safety and metrology regime on EU exit that mirrored the framework in operation the day before EU exit as closely as possible. As the hon. Lady rightly pointed out, an impact assessment has not been prepared for this SI, because measures resulting from the Windsor framework are out of scope of assessment.
To conclude, it is vital for the reasons I am about to summarise that this instrument comes into force in Northern Ireland. It is needed to properly implement the Windsor framework with respect to ATEX products. It achieves its main purpose by amending the Northern Ireland ATEX regulations to reflect the fact that the UK is no longer part of the EU and by introducing provisions on the UK(NI) marking, which will enable UK conformity assessment bodies to assess ATEX products for the Northern Ireland market and ensure conformity. The impact of the changes is likely to be very low for businesses and to be associated with familiarisation with the new UK(NI) marking requirements and the labelling itself. I am happy to commend this instrument to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
Health and Social Care
(10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
We have a superb new accident and emergency in Scunthorpe, and we are pressing ahead with plans for a large, state-of-the-art community diagnostic centre. I have lived locally all my life, and those are some of the most significant upgrades we have seen in a generation. But there are things to do—we certainly need more NHS dentists. Would the Secretary of State consider a tie-in so that newly qualified dentists spend a minimum percentage of their time delivering NHS care?
Steve Barclay
I am pleased to see those services going into Scunthorpe. That underscores the investment we are making now while preparing for the long term, through the largest ever expansion in workforce training in the NHS’s history. My hon. Friend is right about the importance of tie-ins. Let me explain why that matters in particular for dentists: around two thirds of dentists do not go on to do NHS work. That is why the plan has looked at tie-ins for dentistry, which we will explore in the weeks and months ahead.
[Official Report, 3 July 2023, Vol. 735, c. 580.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay):
An error has been identified in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft).
The correct response should have been:
Steve Barclay
I am pleased to see those services going into Scunthorpe. That underscores the investment we are making now while preparing for the long term, through the largest ever expansion in workforce training in the NHS’s history. My hon. Friend is right about the importance of tie-ins. Let me explain why that matters in particular for dentists: around one third of dentists do not do NHS work. That is why the plan has looked at tie-ins for dentistry, which we will explore in the weeks and months ahead.
Topical Questions
The following is an extract from Health and Social Care topical questions on 11 July 2023.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
Back to NHS dentistry, I am afraid. Later this week, the Select Committee will publish its report on NHS dentistry services. Spoiler alert: it will be uncomfortable reading for some. Will the Secretary of State tell us when and how he plans to bring forward plans for the tie-in of newly qualified dentists? Could that go hand in hand with a “return to the NHS” campaign for dentists who have already left that part of the service?
Steve Barclay
It is characteristically astute of my hon. Friend to zero in on the tie-in, which is an important part of the long-term workforce plan. Around two thirds of dentists do not go into NHS work after training, so having a tie-in is more pertinent there than it might be elsewhere in the NHS workforce.
[Official Report, 11 July 2023, Vol. 736, c. 174.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay):
An error has been identified in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine).
The correct response should have been:
Steve Barclay
It is characteristically astute of my hon. Friend to zero in on the tie-in, which is an important part of the long-term workforce plan. Around one third of dentists do not do NHS work, so having a tie-in is more pertinent there than it might be elsewhere in the NHS workforce.
Planned closure of the Bank of Scotland's Pollokshields Branch
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
UK-Mongolian Relations
(10 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
James Gray (in the Chair)
May I announce a rather unusual change to normal procedure? I intend to take part in the debate, but I am also a member of the Speaker’s Panel of Chairmen, and it has been agreed by all parties that in the absence of the regular Chairman, I shall chair the debate until Sir Roger Gale comes to relieve me, which should be in a few minutes. I hope that that is acceptable to the House.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered UK-Mongolian relations.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, during this important debate on Anglo-Mongolian relations. It was a tremendous privilege for me to be appointed as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Mongolia some two and a half years ago. I come from an exports background: before becoming a Member of Parliament, I spent my formative career after university in exports, and I fundamentally believe that the future prosperity of our nation is predicated on our ability to have the same strength in exports that we have in our indigenous economy. The UK is the fifth largest economy in the world, but not the fifth largest exporter. We have a target of £1 trillion of exports by 2030, and the role that the trade envoys play in promoting British exports is very important.
In January, we celebrated the 60th anniversary of our bilateral diplomatic relations with Mongolia, and 60 is an important number for Mongolians, so they held a large reception at the Dorchester hotel. I was pleased to speak at the event, together with the Deputy Prime Minister of Mongolia, to highlight the fact that the UK was the first European country formally to recognise Mongolia as an independent sovereign nation.
During my visits to Mongolia, the country’s geopolitical significance has become ingrained in my thinking. There are tremendous opportunities for bilateral co-operation, which I shall set out in the debate, but before outlining our goals and aspirations in Mongolia and the far east, let me describe the wasted decades of our obsession with the European Union.
Post Suez, we lost confidence as a nation. Suez was such a jolt for us—this is a subject I have studied extensively—that our mindset as a nation changed. We went through a period of economic and political malaise. Certainly, I believe, we went through a period of significant retrenchment, and we pulled away from many of our commercial and military interests in the far east. It was the Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew—as you will remember, Mr Gray—who remonstrated with us for pulling away from our bases there. We tended to focus purely on our own continent and the European Economic Community. At that time, civil servants and others peddled the narrative, “The empire has gone. We are too small to navigate the world stage, and we need the crutch of the EEC.”
There then ensued decades of political, economic and constitutional enslavement to the process of the supranational state. We watched the constant EU summits and the constant debates in which people tried to thrash into one policy the views and aspirations of 28 countries. We left the EU and, despite all the bullying from Brussels, we have kept our course to freedom and independence.
This Government have achieved two extraordinarily important goals during their tenure of office: entry into the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, the world’s largest and fastest-growing trading bloc; and membership of AUKUS, the new naval agreement between Britain, Australia and America. If protected, those two extraordinary achievements will have a profound impact not only on the British economy, but on world security and peace. The CPTPP is the world’s largest trading bloc and contains some of the fastest-growing countries in the world, including Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and Vietnam—in fact, the whole of the far east. Those countries are growing extraordinarily. The United Kingdom is the only European country that has been invited to join, and my understanding is that we will be signing the treaties to enter this month or next month—
Daniel Kawczynski
Sunday, in fact. The CPTPP involves no interference in our domestic affairs or our judicial processes, and no membership fees of £200 million a week—just pure trading. It is so exciting for the British people to enter a market that is growing at a phenomenal rate.
The second achievement, AUKUS—the new naval agreement with America and Australia—gives us the opportunity with our allies to re-enter the Indian and Pacific oceans in a meaningful way, for the first time in my lifetime. The British media’s obsession with scandal and petty domestic issues is of great regret to me, because it does not focus on the extraordinary achievements of the CPTPP and AUKUS. When we go to the Dog and Duck in our constituencies, how many people come up to us and talk to us about AUKUS or the CPTPP? Nobody comes to talk to me about those things in my surgery or the local pub, and yet I feel passionately about them because they signal a huge pivot for Britain away from this obsession with our inconsequential continent, which is shrinking every day as a percentage of global population and GDP, and instead towards the far east, where the real growth is, not just for ourselves but for future generations of British businesspeople and entrepreneurs.
We now have a Mongolian intern in my office on a three-month secondment: Lomax Amarsaikhan, who studied at the University of Bristol. He is writing a report about British entry into the CPTPP and whether Mongolia ought to emulate us. I would like to ask you, Mr Gray, and others participating in the debate who have experience of how Britain signed membership of that very important organisation, and the logistics and wherewithal of our experience of entering the CPTPP, to contact Lomax. He will spend the next two months with me, writing that report in Mongolian and English. It will be presented to the Mongolian Parliament, so that we can share with the Mongolians our experience of entering this huge new bloc and encourage them to consider whether it would be suitable for them to follow us.
[Sir Roger Gale in the Chair]
There are 195 countries in the world, yet only one has no coastline, with the Russians to the north and the Chinese to the south: Mongolia. What an extraordinary situation. More than any other countries in the world, Russia and China use brutality to oppress and subjugate their neighbours. They bully their neighbours and steal territory without remorse. That is quite extraordinary, given their status as permanent members of the UN Security Council. One would think that the five countries with the extraordinary privilege of being permanent members of the UN Security Council would be at the forefront of trying to uphold an international rules-based order predicated on the rule of law, democracy, human rights and all the other attributes of modern democratic societies and modern international relations that we feel so strongly about. Yet the Russians and the Chinese are doing the exact opposite: contravening the rules and regulations of the UN, the European Court of Justice and the International Court of Justice and trying to manipulate and threaten their neighbours.
Mongolia is a beacon of hope and democracy in that region. So many countries in that region—Russia, China, Burma—are oppressing their people. The reason I am so excited about Mongolia and feel so strongly about that nation is that despite its being subjugated by the Soviet Union as a satellite state and spending decades under a brutal, oppressive communist regime, whenever I go there I see the thirst and determination to grasp and nourish democracy and try to create a genuine democratic society in which there is rule of law and freedom of the press, and in which people can criticise politicians and get rid of them at elections.
We must support countries such as Mongolia, despite all the provocations from some neighbours and their past difficulties. We must support them economically and from a security perspective. For me, China is the biggest threat. I started to ask questions about China’s conduct in the South China sea seven years ago, of the then Foreign Secretary, Mr Hammond. I asked what the British Government’s attitude was to the Chinese seizure of hundreds of atolls in the South China sea—stealing them from Brunei, Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and others and militarising the whole of the South China sea, a waterway through which 60% of the world’s trade passes.
The response from the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign Office, which is indelibly imprinted on my mind, was that they do not take a view on the dispute of uninhabited atolls in the South China sea. I very much regret that answer, because I feel that the militarisation of the South China sea and our turning a blind eye to the Chinese stealing hundreds of atolls, pouring concrete on them and militarising the area are the thin end of the wedge. They give the communists succour and the ability to know that they can continue to push the boundaries in their expansionist policies in the region.
It is not just the South China sea. We all know the situation with Taiwan and the difficulties that the Taiwanese Government are experiencing. We know that the Chinese have trashed the agreement over Hong Kong that they signed with Margaret Thatcher in December 1984. We had a debate in the House the other day about the subjugation of democracy rights activists in Hong Kong. We know the allegations regarding the brutal suppression of the Uyghurs and, of course, the situation in Tibet.
Two gentlemen, Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne, made the biggest mistake in their determination to cosy up to the Chinese, because of the dollar, the huge power of the Chinese and their ability to invest money and provide big markets. We are rightly critical of other countries because of their human rights abuses, but we have turned a blind eye to the Chinese and their conduct. The mistake made by Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne was profound. I hope that this Government and subsequent Governments will be more adroit and more courageous in ensuring that we start to divest ourselves of our extraordinary overdependence on imports from China.
When I asked the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how we were going to become less dependent on China, she said one word: CPTPP. By entering the CPTPP, we enter a market in which 99% of goods will be traded tariff-free. What is it that we currently import from the Chinese that we cannot import from the Koreans, Japanese, Vietnamese, Singaporeans, Malaysians and others? That is the message that I want to get across to the Minister. I want us to use our entry into the CPTPP to encourage countries such as Mongolia to join us—fellow democracies like Mongolia and people who believe in the things that we do—in the new trading bloc. I want us to use our position to try to restrict Chinese entry into the CPTPP unless China starts to behave in a different way towards its indigenous population and its neighbours.
When I visited Mongolia, I was taken to the Gobi desert to inspect the Rio Tinto copper mine. Rio Tinto, based up the road in St James’s Square, is a major Anglo-Australian mining company. I spent the afternoon inspecting the world’s third largest copper mine in the world, the Oyu Tolgoi Rio Tinto mine in the Gobi desert. I was taken 1.5 km underground and spent the afternoon inspecting the honeycomb labyrinth of tunnels that make up the world’s third largest copper mine. It has an investment of over $15 billion and a massive impact on the Mongolian economy.
One thing I was particularly pleased to see was that 97% of all the mineworkers were Mongolian and that the mine had won major international environmental awards for the way that it mined and looked after the area in which it was mining. That has a hugely important economic benefit for Mongolia. I am proud and privileged to have played a small part in the negotiations between the Mongolian Government and Rio Tinto in reassessing and modernising the agreement so that it is now a win-win for both sides.
Let us not forget that only 7% of Mongolia has been explored. We already see vast opportunities in the mining sector, yet only 7% of this jurisdiction has been explored. The Mongolians are mining the copper and it is going straight across the border to the Chinese in its lowest-value form. It goes in huge railway compartments across the border to China, which, as the Minister knows, is so thirsty for all minerals. It seems to devour all these things so quickly.
I say publicly to the Minister that the way to compete against the Chinese in Mongolia is by demonstrating to our Mongolian friends and partners that we want a genuine win-win partnership rather than the exploitative type of approach that they have experienced in the past. I am talking to UK Export Finance about the possibility of trying to bring British technology and expertise in copper smelting and refining. What better way to send a signal to the Mongolians that we are interested in increasing their economy, bringing added value to their output and giving them the power of having that processing industry in their own country, not just for Rio Tinto but for many other mining jurisdictions across the country?
We have the opportunity to say to the Mongolians, “We are going to work with you. We are going to bring in this technology and, potentially, we are going to finance it.” I have £2 billion burning a hole in my pocket at the moment. I do not often say that, but that is what I have generously been given by the Minister’s Department and UK Export Finance for cheap soft credit loans to facilitate British entities operating in and exporting to Mongolia. The solution need only have a minimum of 20% British content, but it is a huge opportunity for us. I pay tribute to UK Export Finance, in front of the Minister.
My interactions with Mr Tim Reid, the chief executive of UK Export Finance, have been tremendous. He and his team are very agile and adept at meeting and trying to work productively and effectively with us trade envoys to provide additional resource and opportunities for us to promote British exports with those additional soft loans and credit, which are extremely important. Can I please ask the Minister to take an interest as I progress with others in trying to bring British expertise into the Mongolian copper refinery industry? I will keep her up to date on my meetings with the chief executive of UK Export Finance, to let her know the progress on what I consider to be probably the single most important economic solution on which we can work together with the Mongolians to bring value-added processing to their copper industry.
The second issue is the capital, Ulaanbaatar. It is a beautiful city, which I have had the honour of visiting on four separate occasions. Mongolia is a huge jurisdiction with massive opportunities but a tiny population of only 3 million. I think it is going to be the next United Arab Emirates, Kuwait or Qatar within our children’s lifetime, not from oil but from minerals. Such is the wealth of the country, and so small is its population, that there is a genuine opportunity to create huge prosperity.
I look forward to the Minister’s visit to Ulaanbaatar, which she has promised to make at some stage; as she will see, it is one of the most congested cities in the world. Unfortunately, the Mongolians have one of the highest cancer rates in the world as a result of the extraordinary pollution in that city. I have been warned not to go in January and February, not only because it is about minus 40°C, but because of the huge amount of pollution in the city as a result of the congestion.
The Mongolians have asked us to look at working with them to build a ring road around Ulaanbaatar—not quite an M25, but a ring road. That is their most important strategic project, because they can see that their capital city is slowly being choked off. It is expanding extremely quickly and cannot cope with the level of congestion, which is causing them a significant problem. I say to those watching on television who have expertise in the construction, architecture or design of such arteries, or in any aspect of construction, please contact my office. As we continue to engage with the Mongolians, we would be very interested in providing them with the maximum number of British solutions possible, and that project could be financed by UK Export Finance.
I move on to critical minerals. I have already spoken extensively of my concerns about China’s brutal communist regime. As one of the Tory MPs sanctioned by Russia, I have already been banned from entering that country. The Chinese have already threatened to ban me from China if I continue to express anti-Chinese sentiments in the House. Perhaps this will tip me over the edge. I would be proud to join other Tory MPs who have been sanctioned in that way by the Chinese and the Russians.
China controls 80% of the world’s rare earth minerals. I want people to remember that for a second—it is extraordinary. We went to war in ’56 in Suez because of our misunderstanding that Nasser would restrict the flow of oil. We were so profoundly concerned about our industry collapsing as a result of the restriction of that vital commodity that we went to war. It backfired on us spectacularly, but we are entering a period when critical minerals will have even more significance for our economy than oil did in the 1950s—I am absolutely convinced of that. When flying back to Heathrow across the North sea, we see the thousands of wind turbines that we are building. We have more offshore wind than any other country in Europe, yet not a single one of those turbines can operate without a magnet. That magnet is made from rare earth minerals.
How can we keep our wind turbines, cars and most of the economy and industry going in future without rare earth minerals? They will be hugely important and I am pleased that, as the Minister will know, we have a dedicated Minister for rare earth mineral strategy: the Minister for Industry and Economic Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani). I am also talking to her about this issue.
When one country controls 80% of the world’s rare earth minerals, particularly a country as nefarious as China, we and future Governments need to start thinking about a strategy on becoming less dependent on the Chinese. At some stage in our lifetimes, they will threaten us by restricting access to rare earth minerals. I do not know when that will come—maybe over difficulties concerning Taiwan or difficulties with our freedom of navigation exercises in the South China sea; the only thing keeping that sea open is the implementation of those exercises by Britain and America. I do not know when the conflict will come, but I do know that, given the nature of the communist regime in China, it will attempt to restrict access to those vital minerals at some stage in the future.
We need to find alternatives, such as the mine in Mongolia that can potentially produce 10% of the world’s rare earth minerals. I have met representatives of the British company that owns the mine—they are based here in London—and I am very encouraged about the opportunities to exploit it, in collaboration with our Mongolian friends and allies, so that we can be less dependent on the Chinese.
The issue is not just about mining the rare earth minerals. We are bringing British processing industry to Mongolia to turn those minerals into magnets so that they can be air-freighted directly to Britain. That is the future. Relying on imports through China is no longer acceptable, whether from Kazakhstan or Mongolia. The next stage is for us to bring British processing industry to Mongolia. Again, that is a win-win situation for our Mongolian allies and ourselves, when it comes to turning the rare earth minerals into magnets. It is commercially viable, as the Minister will know, to air-freight magnets from a foreign jurisdiction directly to the United Kingdom, which would give us supplies of that vital commodity in the eventuality of difficulties or tension with the communist People’s Republic of China.
Before I finish, let me add a word about JCB, an extremely important British company based in Staffordshire, the county next to mine. No organisation or company better exemplifies the opportunities for British products in a country such as Mongolia. I visited the JCB dealership in Ulaanbaatar and met Gerry, the Mongolian gentleman who runs it with his wife and family. In the past eight years, the dealership has gone from 0% to over 25% market share for these sorts of machines in the mining industry in Mongolia.
I asked Gerry, “How do you do it? How do you compete against the machines from China? The Chinese just have a border to cross; we have to build these things in Staffordshire and get them across the world.” Gerry said it was about two things: the quality of the British goods and the after-sales service. We test these machines to destruction. The durability of the British products and the after-sales service are what differentiates British products from Chinese ones. That is what has given us such a competitive advantage over our Chinese competitors.
I was so impressed by Gerry and his team that on my last visit I invited the Mongolian Deputy Prime Minister to visit the dealership; I hope that the Minister visits it when she goes to Ulaanbaatar. Everything there is British-made—from the factory to the workshops and the areas where the goods are on display. There is even a golf driving range for customers that was built and designed by British architects and manufacturers. If we could bottle Gerry’s enthusiasm for selling British products, we would make a fortune. He is so proud of his partnership with the United Kingdom.
We need more political focus on Mongolia, and I have outlined to the Minister why Mongolia is so important. Earlier this year, I was in Kazakhstan as an election observer in Astana. While I was there, the Foreign Secretary visited Astana and signed some important agreements with this other extremely important democratic country. Kazakhstan is very similar to Mongolia: it has extraordinarily high levels of mineral production and is a post-Soviet satellite state, but it is a country that is inching its way towards democracy and the rule of law. I was impressed by what I saw as an election observer in Astana—genuine freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Mongolia and Kazakhstan, side by side, are the exciting democratic flowers that we need to water, nurture and bring into our rules-based order of democracy and freedom. They are two fascinating countries— Mongolia and Kazakhstan, side by side—and there is no greater contrast than that between them and Russia and China.
The other day, I briefed the Foreign Secretary about the need for him to visit Ulaanbaatar, and he promised that he would consider that. I hope that the Minister will take that away with her. She can see my motivation and genuine excitement about the country. Will she engage with the Foreign Office and the Prime Minister about the possibility of a state visit for the President of Mongolia, or the possibility of our own Prime Minister inviting the Mongolian Prime Minister to the United Kingdom?
Ulaanbaatar was flooded recently, and yesterday my Mongolian intern showed me a video of the destruction and devastation of Ulaanbaatar—some of the worst floods that the city has had for many years. I hope that when the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office looks at international aid, it looks a countries such as Mongolia. I want a team of British hydrologists and flooding experts at least to visit Mongolia and engage with the Mayor of Ulaanbaatar so that we can see how we can support our Mongolian friends and allies in dealing with what they perceive to be one of their biggest threats: their inability to control the flooding.
[Carolyn Harris in the Chair]
As the Minister will know from my Prime Minister’s questions, I always refer to the fact that my town, Shrewsbury, is flooded every year. We are working on a holistic solution to managing the River Severn and I chair the caucus of 42 MPs through whose constituencies the river flows. She will know the nightmare and devastation caused by a community’s flooding every year. That affects our friends in Ulaanbaatar, and I hope the Minister will take note.
When the Minister visits Mongolia, I will make sure she meets the only female governor in Mongolia’s 21 provinces, Bolormaa Enkhbat. She was chief of staff to the Mongolian Prime Minister and is now the country’s first and only female governor. She invited me to her province of Khovd, near Kazakhstan, which meant a three-and-a-half-hour flight from Ulaanbaatar. I was extremely impressed as she showed me around many opportunities for investment in her province. I very much hope the Minister will meet her.
Another thing I saw in the province, and which I hope the Minister will be able to see, is a hydroelectric power station built by the Chinese 10 years before my visit. I had never seen anything like it. I spent an afternoon walking around it and was blown away by the poor finish and poor quality. It is almost designed to fail—or disintegrate—at some stage. It would not pass muster here in the United Kingdom in a month of Sundays. If we are to compete against the Chinese on infrastructure projects such as that one, it is important we bring that expertise.
I want to pay tribute to Philip Malone, the outgoing British ambassador, who has had a career in the Foreign Office lasting more than 40 years. His first posting was in 1983 in Argentina, so we can imagine what a difficult slot that was. We did not have relations after the Falklands war and relations were done through the Swiss embassy. The professionalism and conduct of British ambassadors when one is overseas always gives one a tremendous pride in one’s own country. Our ambassadors—the men and women privileged to do that role—are the best, and Philip Malone has been exceptional. I also welcome the incoming British ambassador, Ms Fiona Blyth, who is the first female British ambassador to Mongolia. I had the honour of meeting her recently, and I wish her every success in future.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray), the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for Mongolia, who does a great deal in promoting bilateral relations. I also pay tribute to the former Labour MP John Grogan, who tells me he is busy campaigning in Selby today and who I think will stand in Keighley at the next general election. He does a tremendous job as chairman of the Mongolian British chamber of commerce. I also want to thank Kevin Ringham, the civil servant who runs the Prime Minister’s trade envoy programme.
Mrs Harris, you have been the third Chair today, so I cannot say it has been a great privilege to serve under your chairmanship only, as you have been there only part of the time. I hope the Minister realises how being trade envoy has given me a huge enthusiasm for Mongolia. It is a very important democratic partner for the United Kingdom and I look forward to her work and that of the Government in continuing to nurture relations with Ulaanbaatar.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I thank the Chairman of Ways and Means for kindly allowing me to take part in this debate after having opened it in the Chair. It is an unusual thing to have done, and I am glad to have set a new record.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), whose speech was wide-ranging, geopolitical and extremely interesting. He is a true master in the development of our relationship with Mongolia, and I thank him for the work that he does as our trade envoy. The way he has made a real presence in Mongolia, and a real presence for Mongolia here in London, is superb. The work he has done is outstanding. His speech today will go down in the history of UK-Mongolia relations as being extremely important in laying out the significance of our trade relations with Mongolia.
I hope the House will forgive me if I am a little more parochial than my hon. Friend and deal with the country of Mongolia rather than elsewhere in world—that is more my level. I want to let the House know that I am a bit of a fraud; the reason for my interest in Mongolia is that throughout my entire childhood my father used to threaten to send me there if I was naughty. I had no idea where Mongolia was; I thought it was somewhere extremely remote, very strange and unusual, and pretty awful. When I came to Parliament 27 years ago and had the opportunity to visit Mongolia, I thought I had better find out what it really was like. I am delighted to say that my late father could not have been more wrong in his description of what an awful place it was; I am delighted to have had my relations with Mongolia develop ever since.
Mongolia is a very interesting place. It is a huge country—something like 10 times the size of the United Kingdom. There are only 3 million people, more than half of whom live in Ulaanbaatar. There are a very small number of people, largely herdsmen, elsewhere across the country. They preserve their magnificent traditions, which stretch back to earliest times, encompassing Genghis Khan and the great Mongol empire in the 13th century—the largest empire the world has ever known.
Incidentally, the Mongol empire of Genghis Khan was largely dependent on the fact that he invented stirrups. For that reason, he was able to have his warriors charging with swords and bows and arrows and fighting from horseback, while the enemy could not. The same applied when the Saxons lost in 1066; they rode down to Hastings and then got off their horses—they did not have stirrups. Genghis Khan did have stirrups, and that accounts for the greatest empire the world has ever known.
It is important that Mongolia maintains those traditions. When one goes there, one stays in a ger—it is not a yurt, which is a Russian word. One must ride a Mongolian horse, as I have done many times. Although given my height, I can actually run along the ground as I ride because the horse is so small. It is quite an experience. One must buy some Mongolian traditional dress—people wear it to this day, particularly in the countryside, but also in Ulaanbaatar—and take part in all the magnificent and important cultural events there. It is a great way to remember the past.
The Mongol derby happens next week. My friend Philip Atkins is taking part in the 1,000-mile race across the steppes on Mongolian horses—what a magnificent way to commemorate the great postal runs across Mongolia. My best wishes to Philip for what lies ahead. I would not do it for all the tea in China—or in Mongolia, come to that—so well done to him for doing it. Those kinds of tradition, and the history and culture of Mongolia, are of huge significance.
One of the main reasons I am in love with Mongolia is that—as my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham mentioned—it is a little beacon of democracy. The little Parliament, the State Great Khural, operates in a region that is not at all friendly towards democracy. Mongolia is surrounded on one side by Russia, and on the other by China—both are hostile, and the Mongolians dislike both equally. The country is reliant on both to some degree, but is certainly not friendly to either, and for good reason.
There, in the middle of nowhere, Mongolia maintains proper democracy, based on our system in Westminster, which is to be encouraged. It is therefore important that we find ways of assisting Mongolia in the constitutional changes coming up—it is just about to change the way the Parliament is elected. We should assist it in every possible way to make those changes and to continue to develop that important democratic beacon in the middle of an anti-democratic desert.
With that in mind, I am very glad that I have often visited Mongolia with the Inter-Parliamentary Union. The IPU do great work in encouraging democracy in Mongolia. It is disappointing that we were not able to be there this year, which is the 60th anniversary of our recognition of Mongolia, but I hope we will be there soon none the less. The all-party parliamentary group for Mongolia might organise a trip, if we can find some funding to do that, and I hope the IPU might reconsider the decision not to visit this year and find time do so shortly. It is terribly important that we here, with 1,000 years of democracy in this building, make use of our knowledge and experience in countries such as Mongolia, which are desperately trying to hang on to democracy.
I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the new ambassador, Fiona Blyth, to her place in Mongolia. She is a great woman—I have met her many times—and she will do a superb job in representing Britain’s interests. I also thank the outgoing ambassador, Philip Malone, who did the job with great distinction indeed. We do wonderful work in supporting democracy in Mongolia and we must make sure that we continue to do so.
In passing, may I refer to the all-party parliamentary group, which is very active in this place? We see a lot of Mongolians coming through Parliament, and I am most grateful to a member of my office staff, Oscar Harrison, who runs the group for me. He does a first-class job. This is an important APPG. This Parliament has far too many APPGs, and I only run those that are very active and do things. The Mongolia APPG does a great deal, and I am most grateful for it.
In my 25 years of visiting Mongolia, I am delighted to say that I have seen huge changes. I remember going there shortly after the Soviets had withdrawn. Ulaanbaatar, or UB, was a pretty rundown little Soviet-type place with one major hotel, which had one thing on the menu, namely mutton. If guests did not like mutton, they did not get anything to eat.
All those years ago, Mongolia was a pretty rundown ex-Soviet country, but the changes I have seen since then are extraordinary. UB has doubled in size—with some environmental consequences, as my hon. Friend mentioned—and some worthwhile modern technologies and industries are developing there, particularly with regard to the Oyu Tolgoi mine and other mining and mineral interests.
I have also been glad to see the cashmere industry develop over the years. Some 30 years ago, the Gobi Cashmere factory in Mongolia was extremely basic and grey cardigans were all that was available. Today, the cashmere industry is fairly modern and widely advertised, and the industry exports to the UK, which I am glad about, although more could be done. I think I am right in saying that the company is still owned by the state, and if it were privatised it might become even better. None the less, some of those new industries—
James Gray
I do not have much time. My hon. Friend spoke for 45 minutes—[Interruption.] Let us not bother with that for now. I hope we will see Gobi developing further in the years to come.
We in this country have an enormous amount to contribute to Mongolia. I have already mentioned democracy and the free-market economy, both of which we can lead on for Mongolia and the rest of the world, and we can contribute a huge amount with regard to commerce and industry, as my hon. Friend has described. I am glad that there is, for example, a big relationship between the London stock exchange and the Mongolian stock exchange, and the Mongolian stock exchange can learn an awful lot from us.
In a variety of other economic and trade aspects, we are developing our relationship with Mongolia, and we can also do a lot with regard to education and science. English is now the second language of Mongolia, which I am glad about, and we can do a huge amount to promote industry, science and education there. I am pleased that there is also a defence relationship with Mongolia, and 6,000 Mongolian troops served in Afghanistan alongside us. Those troops made a useful contribution to the defence of the world.
Mongolia is no longer the outer extremity of the world, which is how my father described it to me all those years ago. It has a great distance to go before it becomes a fully integrated, fully modern and fully democratic nation state. We all want that to happen, but the changes I have seen in 25 years of going to Mongolia are quite extraordinary and very worth while.
I send the Mongolians every good wish, and I hope Mongolia keeps on its steady track of movement towards democracy and a free-market economy. I hope Mongolia maintains its fine old traditions as it does that. We must remember the country’s culture, language and education. If it continues in such a way, people in 60 years will be able to look back from the 120th anniversary of our recognition of the country and be proud of the contribution Britain has made to Mongolia.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) for stepping in as temporary Chair to ensure that the debate could occur. I congratulate the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) on securing this important debate. I understand that he is a passionate advocate for UK-Mongolian relations, as was evidenced by the time he took to speak.
This debate comes as Mongolia marks 60 years of diplomatic relations with the UK. Trade between the UK and Mongolia has dropped by as much as 58% over the past three years, from a total value of more than £0.5 billion in 2020. The Mongolian economy continues to rapidly grow, presenting new opportunities in sectors such as energy, education and agriculture for companies across these four nations. I would welcome further details from the Minister on the UK Government’s plans to increase UK exports, and specifically Scottish goods, to the Mongolian market.
In terms of energy, trade with Mongolia presents Scotland with a unique opportunity. Scotland, of course, has vast expertise in the renewable energy sector, in areas such as wind and hydropower, and it is important that closer links are developed between Scottish companies and their Mongolian counterparts to build on that expertise. In order to better promote Scottish businesses and harness that expertise, it is important that Scottish Government officials are invited to future UK-Mongolian trade meetings. Will the Minister commit to that today?
When last asked in February 2022, as I understand, the UK Government stated that the Department for International Trade had a team of four focused on promoting UK exports to Mongolia and reducing barriers to trade. Given the drop in exports and the increased budget allocated to promotion of UK trade, I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed whether that number will rise.
The UK Government should look to work alongside the Scottish Government to host trade exhibitions to promote Scottish goods and industry. That is especially important given that whisky and other food and drink products do not feature on Mongolia’s list of top 10 imported goods from the UK. It would provide an opportunity to promote a vital sector of the Scottish economy and culture, but it must be done in a way that ensures local sensitivities around alcohol consumption are respected.
We must ensure that environmental policies remain at the centre of any bilateral discussions. Given the centrality of the mining of critical minerals to the Mongolian economy and the role that UK companies play in harnessing these resources, it is vital that we ensure the correct environmental protections are implemented. It is particularly concerning to hear that some environmental groups have faced issues. Amnesty International has expressed its concerns over the erosion of civil liberties, designed to prevent opposition to mining operations across Mongolia.
In May 2022, the Mongolian Government introduced a Bill to amend the criminal code, creating prison sentences for obstructing mining and other development projects. The draft law would restrict legitimate non-governmental organisation activity, prohibit legitimate activities and limit NGO funding. I wish to put on record the SNP’s support for freedom of association and assembly. NGOs play a vital part in our battle against climate change. Although the Mongolian Government have signalled that they are amending the Bill, we wish to see UK-Mongolian diplomatic engagement reiterate our opposition to the provisions in that legislation, and any subsequent legislation, if it is deemed necessary, must not water down the right to protest.
Indigenous herding communities are bearing the brunt of the impact of increased mining activities. Coal and other mining operations in the Gobi region of Mongolia have destroyed grasslands, contaminated groundwater and depleted other water resources. Those actions are displacing indigenous communities, around 28% of whom—about 600,000 people—have moved from rural communities to the capital. Those who have been displaced face issues including not receiving compensation from the mining operations, and experience the health problems associated with living in temporary accommodation. Those left living in rural communities face health issues caused by the mining activities, on top of the economic damage caused by the destruction of land that was previously used for grazing.
Like all countries across the globe, Mongolia is impacted by changes to the climate, but because more than 30% of the country is desert, it is particularly badly hit by rising temperatures. That will likely force more climate refugees to move to the capital from rural areas, so it is in all our interest to tackle climate change effectively. I hope Mongolia will continue to build on the success of COP26 in Glasgow, and will push to meet its commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. At the conference, the President of Mongolia committed to the planting of 1 billion trees by 2030 as part of a bid to reforest areas of Mongolia, tackle desertification and create a carbon sink. I hope the UK Government will assist Mongolia in its efforts to tackle climate change, and I hope the Minister will refer to that in her remarks.
This debate has highlighted the need for improved links with Mongolia, which would of course present opportunities for Scottish businesses to expand into new markets and capitalise on Scottish expertise in green energy. That is incredibly exciting. I hope the four nations of the UK will continue to develop closer bonds with the nation of Mongolia.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) for securing this debate. The chair of the all-party group for Mongolia, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray), spoke fondly of his regard for Mongolia, and the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar) rightly called for responsible business practices around mining, particularly in relation to traditional nomadic populations.
It is particularly apt that this debate is taking place during the Naadam holiday. I want to pay my respects, and I wish all those celebrating a very happy Naadam. Although our relationship with Mongolia is not our oldest diplomatic relationship, it is one of the warmest. It was a privilege to represent the Labour party at the reception earlier this year on the anniversary of 60 years of diplomatic relations between our two countries, and it is a pleasure to stand here on behalf of the Labour party to celebrate that landmark.
I was also pleased to attend a Mongolian British chamber of commerce event led by John Grogan, the former Member of Parliament for Keighley, who is a great friend of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham and a great champion of Mongolia in the UK. In recent months, I have met His Majesty’s ambassador to Mongolia, Fiona Blyth, and Minister-Counsellor of Mongolia, Bolormaa Batsaikhan. They have both given me a good insight into the relationship and the opportunities between our two countries. I am confident that, through them and the committed team of diplomats in London and Mongolia, the relationship will continue to grow.
I want to put on the record Labour’s enduring thanks for Mongolia’s contribution to the NATO military mission in Afghanistan. There is no greater symbol of abiding friendship and co-operation than sending young men and women into danger to support allies, and Mongolia stepped up to the plate. The international contribution to the people of Afghanistan was truly global, and the 6,000 Mongolian soldiers proudly served shoulder to shoulder with our servicemen and women in Kabul.
I also applaud the growing trading relationship between Mongolia and the UK. There is ample room for it to continue to grow—admittedly, from a low bar—and I know there will be many opportunities for British business to visit the country and develop interests there. In particular, there seems to be an opportunity to share best practice on traffic management to reduce poor air quality, which was mentioned earlier.
I will end on that note, as this has been a particularly consensus-based debate, but I ask the Minister what steps the Government are taking to support the relationship. What measures are being considered to increase exports and cultural exposure here in the UK and in Mongolia? We should not forget that English is our best export, so I hope the Minister is promoting the British Council and the many wonderful things that it can offer in Mongolia. Our relationship is warm, and the opportunities are very real and can mutually benefit both countries. Here’s to 60 more years of a growing relationship.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank the team for making sure the debate could go ahead, despite the challenges at the start.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) for securing the debate and for his passionate commitment, as the trade envoy to Mongolia, to highlighting the wider trade opportunities opening up now that the UK has left the EU and we once again have control of our trade policy. I encourage him to bring his local businesses together, at the Dog and Duck or some other watering hole in his constituency, to share with them some of the CPTPP opportunities that are coming up and to think about how we can ensure that resources as part of the export strategy now held in the Department for Business and Trade can support them as they look to new and exciting markets.
To the point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), and wider questions about opportunities with Mongolia, a key strand of the export strategy is to help our local small and medium-sized enterprises to find the new opportunities for export. I am also grateful for the contributions of other hon. Members and the warmth of their comments. I hope to cover some of the questions that were raised.
As has been mentioned, 2023 is a significant point for UK-Mongolian relations, marking 60 years of diplomatic relations between our two countries. The UK is rightly proud of its status as the first western nation to establish diplomatic ties with Mongolia, which opened the door for like-minded nations to do the same. Mongolia continues to be an important strategic partner for the UK. As we look towards the Indo-Pacific through the lens of the integrated review, Mongolia continues to be at the heart of some of the opportunities there.
Mongolia’s story is as fascinating as it is complex. A democratic island in a sea of autocracy, it has overcome many of its geographical constraints to emerge a modern, strong success story. As it continues its evolution from Soviet satellite state to Asian market economy, we share a deep commitment to democratic values and upholding the international order. As the shadow Minister highlighted, Mongolia has demonstrated that with real tangible commitments through its armed forces commitments.
Mongolia operates a third neighbour policy, reaching out to partners such as the UK, diversifying its relationships and reducing its dependence on Russian energy and trade with China. UK trade with Mongolia is good for us both. Mongolia continues to build resilience to Russian and Chinese pressure while we open up new markets for British businesses. For example, the south Gobi desert is home to the world’s fourth largest copper mine, operated by Rio Tinto, which has invested around $12 billion in the Mongolian economy. The UK Government have offered consistent support as the project has developed, and UK businesses have benefited from a variety of opportunities in the extensive supply chain.
Since we signed a memorandum of understanding with Mongolia to co-operate in the extractive sector, its abundant mineral resources have attracted global attention, with France, the US and South Korea also signing agreements to help explore Mongolia’s critical minerals industry. That is in part driven by Mongolia’s desire to move away from a reliance on selling to China, while western countries seek to reduce China’s dominance in the wider critical minerals supply chains. The availability of UK export finance for projects in Mongolia is another sign of our commitment to our trading relationship and to strengthening the economic ties between our countries.
Elsewhere in the country—to the shadow Minister’s point—education, one of the UK’s greatest exports, is proving to be a vital tool to combat Russian disinformation. Mongolia recently made English its official second language, displacing Russian, and is looking for investment to increase English teaching coverage across the country. We have a strong educational relationship, thanks in large part to our Chevening programme. Eleven Mongolian scholars came to the UK to study this year, and I am delighted to announce that we will welcome 17 next year, reflecting both the high calibre of the students, which is of course always important, and the productive nature of our relationship with Mongolia’s Ministry of Education.
It is in that spirit of hope for the future that, later this year, the UK will sign a memorandum of partnership and co-operation with Mongolia to mark our diplomatic anniversary and to deepen our relationship across a range of areas, including critical and strategic minerals, trade and investment, education and the environment. The partnership shows the Foreign Secretary’s ambition to boost UK influence in middle-ground countries, and to support an international system that reflects our values, especially in Asia.
To grow our influence over the long term, we need to provide greater support for Mongolia in the field of education. That is a key part of our offer and an avenue through which to combat Russian influence, but more than that, it is an investment of faith in this wonderful country that has chosen English as its language of business.
We will work with Mongolia to develop its infrastructure and help it to diversify its energy supply. Discussions are ongoing over the construction of a copper smelter, which my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham raised, and which would help Mongolia to move up the value chain and reduce dependence on China for copper processing. We will work with Mongolia to ensure that any copper processing operation makes economic sense and is done—importantly for us—in the most sustainable way possible.
Mongolia is also a key ally in stopping the circumvention of Russian sanctions, which is essential to denying Russia the funding for its war in Ukraine. We can help by continuing to provide support for Mongolia in its fight against corruption and assisting it in its efforts to strengthen its democracy and build state capacity. At 33 years old, Mongolia is a young democracy, but strengthening democracies anywhere in the world automatically strengthens our own.
It is important for the UK to continue to engage with Mongolia, pinched as it is between Russia and China, and we will seek to co-operate in whatever way we can. Our relationship with Mongolia is already in very good standing, and we recognise the opportunities that that strong partnership presents, as well as the consequences for the international system should we engage insufficiently.
Mongolia is a western-leaning democracy that is walking a diplomatic tightrope—maintaining healthy relations with the neighbours on which it depends, while deepening ties with the west and across the Indo-Pacific. Its move to make English an official language is a sign of its willingness to engage internationally, and when the UK engages in return, we help to contest the Russian periphery and isolate Russia on the global stage. The memorandum of partnership and co-operation will be the start of increased engagement with Mongolia and a road map to a strong and productive future relationship.
Daniel Kawczynski
I will not say much, because I have already spoken for a long time. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray), the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Mongolia, referred to Gobi Cashmere. Of course, cashmere is one of the most important exports for Mongolia. I know that Gobi Cashmere is setting up operations in Europe from the United Kingdom and will want to export more cashmere. Being 6 feet 9 inches, the tallest Member of Parliament and officially a giant, it is not possible for me to buy suits easily, but I am modelling my Gobi Cashmere suit, which I purchased in Mongolia. Once you try Mongolian cashmere, you never go back. For anybody who is in the market for a new suit, this is what you can get—Gobi Cashmere from Mongolia.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered UK-Mongolian relations.
Abandoned Vehicles: Public Highways
(10 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
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered abandoned vehicles on public highways.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the important issue of abandoned vehicles on public highways, which unfortunately are quite common in Keighley. As I see it, it is generally an issue of antisocial behaviour. It has been raised with me at surgeries by many constituents across Keighley, Ilkley and the wider area, and I have visited streets in Keighley to see the vehicles for myself.
We are talking about vehicles that are generally unroadworthy, untaxed, uninsured and without number plates, and that have been left on the public highway for weeks, months or sometimes years. Sometimes they have engines or other parts—predominantly bumpers—missing, having been used as a roadside shop for spare parts.
The issue causes huge frustration to my constituents who have to live on the streets in question and drive past the abandoned vehicles daily, and it impacts the wider feel of Keighley. There are several streets in the centre of town on which vehicles have been abandoned, and many residents have to drive past them to get to work or school.
I want to use this opportunity to get to the crux of how we sort the issue out and get abandoned vehicles that have been left on the public highway for months, if not years, moved. It seems to me that we have the legislation in place but that it is not being utilised fully by Bradford Council. I will come on to that.
The point has been made to me that, in some cases, vehicles have been abandoned in places where they are causing a nuisance to neighbouring residential or business properties. On Brewery Street, just off Dalton Lane in Keighley, one business, which is in its third generation, is being impacted by abandoned vehicles that have been left in situ for many a year. These nuisance vehicles are causing that business problems with its day-to-day functions, because delivery lorries are unable to get in. Quite rightly, that business wants to grow and expand, but it cannot get delivery lorries in and out, because these abandoned vehicles have been left on the public highway.
One thing that always gets thrown back to me is that these vehicles are on the public highway but not an adopted public highway, and we need to understand the difference. The legislation states that “public highway” relates to that which is a private road, but the public have the ability to drive down it, whereas with a public adopted highway the council—Bradford Council—has full control over it.
Many residents have rightly contacted me because they are fed up with these abandoned vehicles and the slow progress that Labour-run Bradford Council is making in removing them. This situation is not just ringfenced to Keighley; it is a wider Bradford district problem. The Yorkshire Post reported on the issue in November 2022, when there was a concerted effort by the council in Bradford city and 90 abandoned vehicles were identified on one street alone. When the notice provisions, which I will come to, were served, various owners suddenly came out of the woodwork to claim their vehicle, despite these vehicles having been abandoned for years, with flat tyres and parts missing—I dare say that the engine probably was not even in some of them. That reduced the number of abandoned vehicles from 90 to only three, on which the council was then able to take action. We absolutely need to get to grips with this issue.
Hotspots in Keighley include Ferncliffe Drive. I met the residents there over a year ago, because they are deeply concerned. It is a private road but a public highway, and there are sometimes up to 15 abandoned vehicles, many of which have no number plates and parts missing. They are uninsured and unable even to get to an MOT centre, let alone pass the MOT. The council should be able to take action and move these vehicles on. Residents on Ferncliffe Drive are rightly getting incredibly frustrated, and the issue of Ferncliffe Drive was specifically raised at the Utley safer streets group meeting, which I was kindly invited to—I have spoken there twice, and I get invited on a semi-regular basis to provide an update on the actions I am taking. I confirmed to that meeting, which was full of concerned residents, that I would bring the issue to Parliament, and I am pleased the Minister is in her place to listen.
Another hotspot is just off Dalton Lane, which is in a residential/industrial part of town. Again, many streets off Dalton Lane are used simply to abandon vehicles. That is unfair on businesses, as I mentioned, but also on the residents of those streets. There is also South Street, which is a very busy street that is used to enter Keighley from the Worth Valley side of the constituency. Every time I have gone up to Cross Roads, Haworth and the wider Worth Valley area, I have counted three abandoned vehicles in close proximity. They have not moved since I have been the MP, which is coming up to four years. Action has to be sorted out. There is still a problem, despite me, as the MP, having raised it with Bradford Council, along with many residents and businesses.
I want to get to the crux of the powers a local authority has available to it, because Labour-run Bradford Council does not seem to be taking the actions available to it under legislation. The powers sit under section 3 of the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978, which gives councils—and national parks, although that does not apply to the circumstances I am describing—the ability to “remove and dispose” of abandoned vehicles. The Act also contains provisions to give local authorities the powers to issue fixed penalty notices to offenders, if the vehicles are not moved on.
The question is, what is an abandoned vehicle? An abandoned vehicle can quite easily be identified, yet the pushback I get from Labour-run Bradford Council is, “Oh, it’s very difficult to decide whether a vehicle is classified as abandoned.” Well, all it needs to do is to go on the Government website, which clearly outlines the provisions for an abandoned vehicle.
First, an abandoned vehicle is one that has no listed keeper on the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency database and is untaxed—information that can quickly be found by visiting the DVLA website and typing in the number plate.
Secondly, an abandoned vehicle is one that has been stationary for a significant period. I suppose the question could be, what is “significant”? Well, if a vehicle has been abandoned for over a year and has not moved, and it has flat tyres, has quite clearly not passed its MOT, and is untaxed or uninsured, that would imply a significant period of time, and it would be reasonable for the council to take action. Again, I put on record my frustration that Bradford Council is not taking the issue seriously.
Thirdly, a vehicle could be abandoned if it is significantly damaged, run down or unroadworthy or has flat tyres, for example. If the Minister would kindly come to my constituency so that I could take her to all these hotspots, she would see for herself that these vehicles should clearly be classified as abandoned. Fourthly, a vehicle can be classed as abandoned if it is burned out, and it would be perfectly reasonable for a burned-out vehicle to be moved on.
Finally, the authority may decide that a vehicle is abandoned if its number plate is missing. That is all that is needed to classify a vehicle as abandoned; it might be properly roadworthy, but if its number plate is missing, it can be classified as abandoned. I have multiple vehicles in my constituency that would be classified as abandoned, that are causing a nuisance to residents and businesses and that need to be moved on.
What duty is placed on a local authority? What powers does it have to move abandoned vehicles on? The legislation is quite clear, stating that a local authority has the ability to move on an abandoned vehicle from a public street; from a private road that is classified as a highway; from an adopted road that is classified as a highway; or from land in the open air, including private land. However, I will focus predominantly on roads, because I am getting most correspondence about abandoned vehicles on roads.
If an abandoned vehicle is on private land, the local authority is duty-bound to serve a 15-day notice period, but that notice period does not apply if the vehicle is on a public highway, so why is Labour-run Bradford Council not getting on with it? It does not need to conform to the 15-day notice period, as that does not apply if a vehicle is abandoned on a road that is classified as a highway, whether that is private or a publicly adopted road. Under the legislation, the local authority is quite rightly protected and cannot be held liable for any damage resulting in its removal of a vehicle from the public highway.
The local authority has two options, and it is incredibly frustrating that Labour-run Bradford Council is not using the opportunity available to it under the 1978 legislation. First, it could apply a penalty. Local authorities can penalise people who abandon vehicles or parts of vehicles—yes, parts of vehicles have been abandoned in Keighley, much to the frustration of local businesses and residents—on the public highway or private land; it can issue a fixed penalty notice or prosecute them. I completely understand the challenge associated with not knowing who owns the vehicle or who owns the private land, but I am focusing on vehicles abandoned on roads. If the owner of the vehicle is not known, it is right that the local authority serves a seven-day notice on it, and if nobody claims that vehicle within that time, the local authority is duty-bound to take action under the 1978 legislation. But Labour-run Bradford Council is not even serving the notice, let alone taking action when nobody comes forward to claim the vehicle after the seven-day period.
There are provisions in legislation that give my local authority the ability to move these vehicles on, but it is not doing so. It can dispose of an abandoned vehicle immediately if either of the following points applies: the vehicle is only fit to be destroyed—that is, it is classified as abandoned—or it has no number plate or tax disc. Those are easily identifiable measurables, but my local authority seems unequipped to find out whether a vehicle is properly classified as abandoned. If I were a civil enforcement officer, I would happily go round my constituency, identify all the abandoned vehicles and get them moved on, because my residents are sick to the back teeth of having to put up with such vehicles being left year on year.
If a vehicle is abandoned and we do not know who the owner is, the local authority has the ability to give that vehicle seven days’ notice. If nobody identifies the vehicle within seven days, the local authority has the ability to move it on. If the owner ever comes back to claim the vehicle, the local authority can charge them for the cost of removal and storage, which is perfectly reasonable.
That brings me to the Removal, Storage and Disposal of Vehicles (Prescribed Sums and Charges) Regulations 2008. The regulations set out how much a local authority can reclaim from the vehicle owner should they ever come to light and identify their vehicle, but I think the Minister could review them, because the removal cost is too low. For example, if a vehicle exceeds 3.5 tonnes but is less than 7.5 tonnes, and it is not upside down or on its side but in a stable position, the maximum amount the local authority can reclaim from the owner is only £200, which will not reimburse it for the cost associated with removing and disposing of that vehicle. To give the local authority its due, that is probably one reason why it is not taking much action, because the removal cost it can recoup from the owner, should they ever come and identify themselves, is only £200 in those circumstances. I do not think that is enough, and the Government could review the regulations.
The crux of this issue is that my residents and businesses, and indeed anybody who comes to visit Keighley—it is one of the most awesome constituencies to come and have a look round—have to see fly-tipping taking place. Vehicles are being left on the street, causing a nuisance to anybody who visits Keighley, resides there or wants to operate their business.
The second issue I want to address is how we challenge businesses that use the highway to park abandoned vehicles for spare parts, often for several years. I think the legislation could be toughened up, and there needs to be more focus on the ability of local authorities to take action against these businesses. Garage businesses may be parking abandoned vehicles on the highway to get spare parts, and it is unfair that they do so.
My understanding is that we have legislation in place that enables a local authority to take legal action if a business is using repair cars on the road or using the road to sell cars, but that has to be toughened up, because the only action that can be taken is issuing a fixed penalty notice, which amounts to only £100. That is nowhere near tough enough to deter businesses from using the public highway to store abandoned vehicles.
The legislation also gives local authorities the ability to take a business to court on behalf of a complainant, which relies on a resident making a complaint against the business. My residents do not have the time or the willpower to deal with that. The local authority should be empowered to take action against that business to stop it using the highway to, effectively, carry out its business by using the highway as a storage camp for its abandoned vehicles. If the matter goes to court, a magistrate can fine the business only up to £2,500. Again, that is nowhere near a strong enough deterrent.
To sum up, I am pleased that Mr Speaker has granted me time to bring to the House the important issue of abandoned vehicles on the public highway. It is an issue in Keighley and my wider constituency. Local authorities are empowered to remove abandoned vehicles, and it is incredibly frustrating that Labour-run Bradford Council does not use the powers afforded to it sufficiently. When it comes to businesses using the public highway to, effectively, store abandoned vehicles, we could go further and use tougher legislative provisions. I urge the Minister to look at the statutory instrument I referred to, so that we can bring forward much tougher fines, which will act as a deterrent.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Trudy Harrison)
I think this is the first time I have served under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. It is a privilege to do so today and to follow my fantastic colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore). He is clearly a champion for his constituents and is in tune with what they need to thrive and what they need for their livelihoods to prosper.
In preparing to speak in this debate, I researched some statistics and was shocked to learn that between 2020 and 2022, Bradford had the highest number of abandoned car reports outside London. That is being played out today in the way my hon. Friend cites a number of areas.
Robbie Moore
The Minister notes that Bradford Council is one of the country’s worst-offending areas outside London with the highest number of abandoned vehicles. Does she agree that the legislative powers are there for a council to utilise? If so, does she share my frustration that Labour-run Bradford Council is not using the powers awarded to it to deal with this issue, which is blighting my constituents?
Trudy Harrison
My hon. Friend makes a powerful and effective point. I am not the Minister responsible for waste at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—that is the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow)—but I will recommend that she meets him and that perhaps we should consider writing to Bradford Council on that point.
As part of our environmental improvement plan, which we proudly published on 31 January, there is a clear imperative to leave the environment in a better state. That is fundamentally about halting nature’s decline by 2030 and increasing its abundance thereafter, but making sure that we have clean water, clean air and good quality soils and that we tackle waste and resources is a fundamental part of that 262-page document.
We need all councils, including Bradford Council, to play their part, and we need residents to do the same. Clearly, the issue of deliveries not being able to get to a business and Brewery Street being clogged up means that business will not be able to prosper. My hon. Friend mentioned the Utley safer streets group and some particular hotspots for abandoned vehicles, namely Ferncliffe Drive, Dalton Lane and South Street; I urge Bradford Council to make those areas a priority, as that is clearly where the focus needs to be.
My hon. Friend is right that the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act has been in place since 1978, when I was coming out of nappies, and that it allows local authorities to take action. It is a criminal offence to unlawfully abandon any vehicle
“in the open air, or on any other land forming part of a highway”.
As he said, doing so is punishable by a fine of up to £2,500 and/or three months in prison. As an alternative to prosecution, councils have the power to issue a fixed penalty of £200 to the vehicle owner. There is a clear legislative vehicle—primary legislation that has been in place for some 45 years—that councils can use.
Recent research by Scrap Car Comparison, based on freedom of information requests to city councils across the country, found the shocking statistic that Bradford had the highest number of abandoned car reports between 2020 and 2022. There are clearly specific issues in Keighley as well. Too many abandoned vehicles are being left to rust, without their owners giving due consideration to their correct disposal. That is clearly a problem for the environment and for local residents, as my hon. Friend set out.
It is not acceptable to run a spares and repairs business on the side of a road. Some of these vehicles are just an eyesore, but the nuisance goes beyond the blocking of roads, parking spaces and property access. The hazardous fluids and chemicals that they contain pose a serious risk to the environment and can contaminate the surrounding land, water and air. That directly contravenes what we all want to achieve in our environmental improvement plan and what society demands of us.
Let me outline some of the measures that are already in place. We are committed to encouraging local solutions for local problems, which is why I commend the Utley safer streets group. I am pleased that my hon. Friend is meeting with those can-do people, who are passionate about improving their community; I will always commend and encourage them.
Before removing a vehicle, authorities must first decide whether a vehicle is abandoned. My hon. Friend made the point about a vehicle not having a keeper, not being taxed and not having moved for a period of time; I agree with him that 12 months is a significant period. If a vehicle has flat tyres or is missing essential parts and panels, and if it has been left for a significant period of time without a number plate, it is blindingly obvious that that vehicle is not roadworthy.
I also confirm that the legislation and measures to which my hon. Friend referred are indeed correct. Local authorities can dispose of an abandoned vehicle themselves. They can do so immediately if it is fit to be destroyed, has no number plate or is untaxed, as my hon. Friend said. Otherwise, they can do so if the owner cannot be found or fails to comply with a notice to collect the vehicle. To help councils to tackle the situation, we have given them powers to penalise people who abandon vehicles or parts of vehicles on public highways. People can be issued with a penalty notice of £200 or—for more serious issues—prosecuted, which can lead to a maximum fine of £2,500 or three months in prison.
I will take up my hon. Friend’s ask to review whether the legislation could be improved to increase enforcement, because without the appropriate powers and action we will not achieve our environmental improvement plan’s 38 legal targets and our moral ambitions. I will certainly undertake to identify further measures that this Government could take in relation to that.
I also want to touch on producer responsibility, because we are still producing new cars and we need to think about the future and how we dispose of the products we make responsibly. That is part of the work that DEFRA is doing. In addition to supporting local action to tackle the abandonment of vehicles, we are tackling the environmental impact of end-of-life vehicles. The end-of-life vehicles producer responsibility scheme—that is a mouthful—has led to an improvement in the treatment of scrap vehicles and to increased recycling and recovery rates. In 2018, of the 1.6 million tonnes of scrapped end-of-life vehicles, 93% were recycled and recovered—an impressive increase from 87% in 2011.
Under the producer responsibility scheme, vehicle manufacturers and importers have a responsibility to establish collection systems into which end-of-life vehicles can be delivered free of charge. Local authorities are also able to deliver end-of-life vehicles into those collection schemes.
Scrap metal has significant value, too. Because 75% of most vehicles is metal, they have value even at end of life. People are incentivised to sell vehicles for scrap, rather than abandoning them on the road, but it is not acceptable for the vehicle to slowly degrade and for spares and repairs to be sold over a period of months and years, clogging up roads and causing a blight to communities and a danger to our environment.
Local authorities have powers to tackle nuisance parking where a business leaves two or more cars for sale, or repair cars, on the road within 500 metres of each other. They can either issue a £100 fixed penalty notice or take the business to court on behalf of the complainant, which can lead to the business being handed a fine of up to £2,500. Furthermore, if a member of the public has concerns that a business is selling a vehicle on the road, they can ask the local authority to make a control order. If a control order is issued, the offender must stop selling vehicles on the road and can be fined £1,000.
In response to my hon. Friend’s excellent points, the evidence is clear that this is a significant issue in the Bradford Council area. I have demonstrated how the Government are supporting councils to tackle this local issue, and outlined how the producer responsibility scheme helps individuals to properly dispose of their end-of-life vehicles. External research shows that the number of abandoned car reports in Bradford peaked in 2021. I hope that the good people of Bradford, particularly in my hon. Friend’s constituency, continue to enjoy dwindling reports of abandoned vehicles. Legislation is in place, but we will look at whether it can be strengthened. There is a clear environmental imperative to take action so that vehicles are not left at the side of roads for months and years at a time. I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this issue to the House’s attention.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered abandoned vehicles on public highways.
Metropolitan Police: Stephen Lawrence Murder Investigation
(10 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
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Metropolitan Police investigation into the murder of Stephen Lawrence.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I will start, as is fitting, by paying tribute to Doreen and Neville Lawrence. Time after time, they have faced setback after setback, yet they continue to campaign with dignity for justice for their murdered son. It is a dignity that puts the shabby performance of the Met to shame. We can only imagine the anger and frustration that they feel, having to endure another revelation that yet again exposes the failings of the investigation into Stephen’s murder and raises the suspicion that corruption hampered it from the start.
Stephen Lawrence was murdered in Eltham on 22 April 1993. One of my first acts on becoming a Member of Parliament was to table a question in the House calling for a public inquiry into the investigation into Stephen’s murder. I pay tribute to my former colleague John Austin, who supported me in doing so. Despite the stench of corruption that surrounded the case from the start, the Macpherson inquiry did not conclude that corruption hampered the investigation. Despite many revelations and investigations along the way, corruption has always been denied.
We are here today thanks to the excellent detective work of two people: the BBC reporter Daniel De Simone, who uncovered evidence that was originally ignored and spoke to key witnesses exposing the failings of the original inquiry, and Chief Inspector Clive Driscoll, whose outstanding work along with his team secured the convictions of David Norris and Gary Dobson in 2012 and uncovered other vital information. The culmination of their combined efforts is that the Met has been forced to accept that Matthew White is a suspect in the attack and is likely to have been the blond-haired sixth attacker.
Last week, the Crown Prosecution Service decided that four officers would not face prosecution for failures in public office for their part in the now discredited police investigation. In 2014, another officer, Detective Sergeant John Davidson, was also exonerated of charges. In a 2006 documentary about the murder of Stephen Lawrence, Davidson was described by then Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Yates as one of the most corrupt officers in the Met. In 1998, Yates was head of Operation Russia, an investigation into a syndicate of corrupt officers in the south-east regional crime squad.
One of the officers under investigation, Neil Putnam, turned supergrass. He disclosed in his evidence a link between DS Davidson and Clifford Norris—the father of David Norris, who murdered Stephen Lawrence. Yates wrote of their association in a memo to the Met while the Macpherson inquiry was still taking evidence. Putnam claims that he understood that his testimony about the link between Norris and Davidson would be reported to the inquiry. The information from Yates and Putnam was not passed to the inquiry. The Met disputes Putnam’s claim that he told his handlers of that link, but Putnam repeated it under oath.
I contacted the Met and demanded to know why Yates had accused DS Davidson of corruption in a programme about the murder of Stephen Lawrence. I pointed out that the Macpherson inquiry had not concluded that corruption had hampered the investigation. I was invited to Scotland Yard to meet the Independent Police Complaints Commission and Cressida Dick; I was not permitted to meet John Yates. I was assured that the Met did indeed believe Davidson to be an extremely corrupt officer, but that that did not have anything to do with the Stephen Lawrence investigation. I asked why the Met chose to make that statement in a programme about Stephen Lawrence if it had nothing to do with the investigation. I never got a satisfactory answer. The Met suggested to me that it used the programme to call out Davidson, which I took to be further evidence of the contempt it had for this case.
In 1998, Martin Polaine, a Crown Prosecution Service barrister, was put in charge of reviewing police corruption evidence from Operation Russia. In a corruption proceeding, he told the Old Bailey of a
“recollection I was told by someone in CIB3 of a link between Clifford Norris and Davidson.”
CIB3 was the unit conducting Operation Russia. He also said that when this information was passed to him in late ’98, it was considered “of great significance”.
David Hamilton was the head of legal affairs at the Met at that time. In a witness statement to a recent corruption inquiry, he recalled
“a suspicion of an association or contact between Davidson and the Norris family”.
In 2000, he wrote:
“Disclosures relevant to Davidson’s contact with the Norris family could have an adverse effect on the Commissioner’s position in the ongoing High Court action by Mr and Mrs Lawrence.”
Stephen’s family immediately asked for an investigation into the 1998 revelations, which was carried out by the IPCC. It concluded that Putnam, Hamilton and Polaine—an experienced police officer and two senior barristers—were confusing Norris with another member of the Norris family who had been killed two years before Stephen’s murder. That is despite all three stating that that was not correct. Davidson is central to the failure of the original investigation. He handled a key witness, whose information could have identified Matthew White in the first couple of days of the investigation.
Why is the recent identification of Matthew White so significant? Because, of all the attackers, he stood out among the witnesses’ descriptions. He was the one they could describe in detail. Duwayne Brooks, who was with Stephen and was closest to him when he was attacked, always stated that the first attacker was the one he could remember the most and could identify. He has since confirmed that he believes that Matthew White was that person. He described him as having frizzy light brown or blond hair that came down over his ears—completely different from the other attackers. When the evidence is re-read in the light of the BBC findings, it becomes apparent that identifying White would have been key to solving the case at the very start. To put it another way, anyone wanting to hamper the inquiry would want to ensure that Matthew White was never identified as the sixth attacker.
The day after the murder of Stephen Lawrence, James Grant—not his real name—walked into a police station to give information. Such was the detail of his information that it should have been clear to the officers that Grant either was a suspect or had been talking to someone who was present at Stephen’s murder. James Grant was not properly registered as an informant, despite having spoken several times to DS Davidson. In 1997, Grant was interviewed by Kent police, who were called in to carry out a review of the original investigation. He said that he had told his handler DS Davidson back in 1993 that his source was Matthew White. DS Davidson denied that, and the Macpherson inquiry accepted his denial. When that fact was later relayed to the detective in charge of the case, Detective Superintendent Brian Weeden, he expressed shock.
In the two weeks after Stephen’s murder, Matthew White was photographed coming out of a house that was under surveillance. Despite the fact that the descriptions of the sixth attacker matched White, he was not arrested or questioned as a suspect. He was mentioned in the Macpherson report as Witness K but, because he was not considered a suspect, his alibi was never questioned. The BBC has demonstrated that his alibi cannot be true. Even Macpherson himself said that White was a significant person. The final report of the Macpherson inquiry said that Grant’s information
“might have provided the key to the solution of the case in quick time. This was because James Grant’s source was close to the suspects, if he was not involved with them himself.”
In 1997, Kent police asked one of the original investigating officers whether they had ever investigated White. He said:
“I can’t really answer that. I didn’t think after those lines”—
whatever that means. One of Kent’s conclusions was that White should be investigated. That was never done. Both Macpherson and Kent police could see that Matthew White was a potential suspect, but the Met failed to act.
The BBC interviewed an informant called Witness Purple. In 1999, Witness Purple gave evidence to the police with details of the attack on Stephen that could only have come from someone who was there. In 2000, White was arrested and questioned about Purple’s information. The police read Purple’s statement to White, at the same time revealing Purple’s identity. Chief Inspector Clive Driscoll told the BBC that that was
“alerting the bad guys…and that cannot be good police work.”
White made no comment in answer and was let go. What could possibly be gained by letting a suspect know the identity of someone giving information against them, other than to silence that informant? Purple stopped co-operating.
Chief Inspector Clive Driscoll began investigating Stephen’s murder in 2006. It was his excellent work that resulted in the convictions of Dobson and Norris in 2012. The day after the convictions, his then superior officer Cressida Dick told him not to bother going after the other suspects. That was despite the judge urging him to do so. Driscoll and his team, to their credit, continued to investigate. He uncovered a vital statement that had been ignored in the original investigation. He discovered that Jack Severs, the stepfather of Matthew White, had given evidence via a friend who was a serving police officer, stating that Matthew White knew more than he had told the police and that he had been present at Stephen’s murder.
That only happened eventually, because the wrong name was recorded for the stepfather. Mr Severs’s information was passed to the investigation team, but was not followed up until 20 years later, when Chief Inspector Driscoll tracked down White’s stepfather, Mr Severs. He confirmed that White had told him that he had been at the murder scene. The BBC found that that information was given to Detective Inspector Brian Weeden, who was in charge of the investigation. That was confirmed in Brian Weeden’s notebook. A meeting with White was planned but never happened.
Consider this for a moment: the officer in charge of a major investigation is contacted by a fellow officer, with information coming from a relative of an individual who, he claims, was present at the murder scene—and it is forgotten. The conclusion of the Macpherson inquiry was that incompetence, not corruption, hampered the investigation. But what the police were expert at, so many times, was mishandling information relating to Matthew White. Can it be explained by incompetence?
Why was James Grant not properly recorded as an informant? Why did the detail of Grant’s evidence not lead officers to ask where it came from? Why was the evidence from Matthew White’s stepfather overlooked for 20 years? How did the wrong name for the stepfather come to be recorded? Why was finding the blond-haired sixth attacker not given priority from the outset? Why was the similarity between White and the witnesses’ descriptions not noted?
Why was White not picked up for questioning after he was photographed coming out of a house that was under surveillance soon after the murder? Why was the link between Grant and White never made by the investigation? Why was the Kent police’s recommendation to investigate White never acted on? Why was Witness Purple’s identity given to Matthew White when Matthew White was being interviewed as a possible suspect? Why did Cressida Dick order Driscoll not to bother investigating the other suspects? Why did she state, when she shut down the ongoing investigation into Stephen’s murder,
“There were no viable lines of inquiry”?
Will the Met now apologise and accept that that was not true? Why was Chief Inspector Clive Driscoll forced to retire when he had uncovered more discarded evidence that warranted further investigation and has resulted in Matthew White being named as the sixth suspect?
All of this means that there should be a further inquiry, which must be completely independent of the Met. What has been exposed goes beyond incompetence. We cannot leave it here.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) for setting out the historical account, the present situation, the severe failings of the Met police and—as he well said—the corruption that has taken place. I would also like to add that Baroness Lawrence is with us in the Chamber.
The 1999 Macpherson report stated that the investigation was
“marred by a combination of professional incompetence, institutional racism and a failure of leadership by senior officers.”
If that report were reviewed in the light of the information that has recently been brought to our attention, it would probably include the word “corruption” as well. Over the decades, the Met should have used the Macpherson report as an opportunity to change. It contains 70 key recommendations for our society to show zero tolerance of racism and discrimination. The Home Affairs Committee’s 2021 report assessing the progress of the recommendations, some of which are still outstanding, concluded that
“there is a significant problem with confidence in the police within Black communities.”
Black communities continue to be under-protected and over-controlled by the police, as has been stated by Robert Reiner, a well-known criminologist.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) for his steadfast work on this case and for his speech. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) agree that we are witnessing a deep-rooted cancer of corruption within the Metropolitan police? It appears to be still alive and kicking. After hearing everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham said in his speech, does my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East agree that we need three things? The Met needs to be dismantled once and for all, we absolutely need an independent inquiry into this, and the Met commissioner must now be held to account for these actions. This cannot go on any longer. Justice is not being served for the Lawrence family.
Janet Daby
I thank my hon. Friend for her significant contribution. There is clearly disruption and corruption in the Met police; we know that from the recent Casey review and, actually, from many other reviews that I will mention. Where corruption, concealment, cover-up and unnecessary distress have been caused to black communities and the Lawrence family, the police commissioners need to be held to account for the fact that they did not do their job properly. Why did they not do their job properly in the first place?
The Scarman report back in 1981 should have been a chance for the police to progress and change. That, too, was a missed opportunity. I have already mentioned the Casey review, which found the Met police to be institutionally racist, misogynistic and homophobic.
To add insult to injury, a BBC investigation published last month found, as we have heard, that there is evidence of a sixth suspect, Matthew White, being involved in the Stephen Lawrence murder, but that line of inquiry was mishandled by the police at the time. Furthermore, it was announced last week that former Met officers will face no further action over their roles in the 1993 investigation into Stephen’s death. That should all be reopened and looked at again because of the corrupt situation that we now know has taken place. To be fair, I am sure we already knew that; it is just that it has been revealed by the BBC.
Last week’s decision must be causing unnecessary frustration and distress to the Lawrence family—I am very sorry for that—and the wider community. Where is justice? Why do black lives not matter more than they do at present? The police should be doing their job properly. What are we to expect from them in the future?
The Met needs to change. It must use the events of this year as motivation to reform. It must not fail to address its shortcomings, as it did in 1999 and in 1981. I therefore join Baroness Lawrence in calling for police officers under investigation for disciplinary offences to hand over data from their personal mobile phones. More investigation needs to take place, and more needs to happen to uncover corruption and bring about real justice.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) for securing the debate. One thing that strikes me from conversations with constituents is the slow pace of reforms in the Met police. People are asking for a review of the police conduct and performance legislation, and of the Independent Office for Police Conduct. There have been recent issues with the IOPC—particularly with the person who was heading it up—and a massive lack of trust. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) agree that those things should be looked at in order to regain trust and reform the police system?
Janet Daby
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the many areas where the police and the IOPC are failing. Obviously, the IOPC must not fail, because it needs to be independent and to be able to investigate situations. Those concerns obviously need to be addressed.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and the Mayor of London have published a draft Bill, backed by Baroness Lawrence, that would overhaul the regulations governing police conduct and dismissal, and would address some of the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) raised. That intervention is welcome and, in particular, I back its provision to introduce a new duty of candour so that police officers report wrongdoing.
The Macpherson report on the death of Stephen Lawrence highlighted the severe corruption in the Met police, but it is important to point out that not everybody in the Met is corrupt. Some people who join the Met police want to do the right thing and bring about justice. Unfortunately, we see time and again that that is not happening for black individuals, families and communities, and that needs to be addressed.
Faith in our police needs to be restored urgently and we need bold reforms. The Lawrence case was one of the first high-profile examples of knife crime in our society. However, we all know that knife crime has got much worse. Although the police have a responsibility to address that, it is not for them alone; the Government need to step up to ensure that it is being dealt with. There are much wider issues to address in rooting out knife crime. What causes children and young people to carry knives? Why do young people feel so unsafe that they carry knives? Why do they risk harming themselves and others? What is behind all that? Ultimately, why do they risk getting involved in the criminal justice system or, worse, losing their own lives or causing somebody else to pass away?
I invite the Minister to set out what the Government plan to do to secure justice for Stephen Lawrence’s family and right the wrongs of past investigations. Will the Government introduce in Parliament the draft Bill created by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham and by the Mayor of London?
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
I found it difficult to sleep last night, thinking about this debate. Knowing that Baroness Lawrence is here today makes the debate very difficult for me. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) for highlighting all the mistakes and the corruption, some of which will be new to people who have not heard about it, and for his work to try to secure justice over a number of years.
The murder of Stephen Lawrence was brutal, and he was murdered by white racist thugs. I remember feeling quite sickened at the thought that a teenager who was just like me and my siblings, with a very similar background, had been murdered while he was waiting for a bus. It made us feel in the community that if he was not safe, none of us was safe. I remember those years.
Baroness Lawrence and Neville Lawrence fought a really hard campaign to get justice for their son Stephen. Even though they were fighting a system built on racism and white supremacy, they continued fighting. They were fighting not knowing that they were being spied on. They had full surveillance on them. They were being tracked by the police, so that the police could try to find something on them. Just imagine how clean and law-abiding the Lawrence family are for the police not to have found anything on them.
If the police had found something on the Lawrence family, it would have been in the papers and the press, and they would have highlighted it, because that is how the establishment and institutional racism works. They wanted to sow the seed of doubt, but there was no seed of doubt to be sown, because they found nothing. Just imagine that the police were working so hard to discredit a black family grieving the loss of their eldest son and their brother. They worked harder trying to discredit a black family than they did trying to convict the murderers.
One of the murderer’s dads was already in prison. These murderers did not come from the perfect family. They were known as the Krays of Eltham, and they revelled in that, but the police spent time trying to discredit Baroness Lawrence and her family. Every single time a new report comes out or the police fail to act or the IOPC fails to act, it traumatises the Lawrence family and the community, because justice delayed is justice denied.
I remember that moment in 1999, some six years after Stephen was murdered, when the public inquiry launched by the Labour Government concluded with the publishing of the Macpherson report. The words “institutionally racist” were indelibly stamped on the public consciousness. Stephen’s tragic murder and the subsequent bungling of its investigation by the Met police revealed to the rest of the country what many of us already knew, and some of us had the misfortune to recognise it from first-hand experience. That includes me, my brothers, my sister and my cousins. I have just written a book, and I have journeyed back through lots of incidents that have happened in my life. As I put them forward to go in the book, the publisher said, “That’s enough now, Dawn; you need to stop.” She then came back and apologised because, she said, “I realised that’s your lived experience.”
I went to Elephant and Castle. I never told my parents that I was there. I travelled alone; I did not go with any friends. I wanted to show my support to the Lawrence family. I also wanted to show the police that we were going to stand up to all the racism and we were not going to be scared. We were told when we were standing there—there was a slope—to be calm and dignified like the Lawrence family. And we were quite calm in the beginning, but when the murderers came out of the building, they had a swagger. They were cocky, and they were cocksure, because they knew they were protected by the Metropolitan police—the people that should have protected the innocent, all of us. Those murderers were protected and they knew it; they showed it. I did not realise how I would feel on that day, but if I had had eggs in my hand I would have thrown them and whatever else I had. Having to witness that undeserved arrogance and privilege was shocking and heartbreaking. It was absolutely palpable in the air, and that is why it kicked off.
As we stand here, 30 years since Stephen’s life was brutally taken, his memory and legacy live on through the work of the Stephen Lawrence trust and the work of the Lawrence family, and so does the ongoing fight for justice for him and his family. We are in this place not for show but to make society better. If we cannot highlight what is wrong with society and get it changed, what is the point?
Thirty years later, the Casey report has highlighted that the Metropolitan police is still institutionally racist. The current commissioner does not like that term. Well, I do not like the term, but I also do not like what it does. I do not like the effects of institutional racism and its consequences for the black community. I do not like the fact that black people are discriminated against more than any other group because of institutional racism. I do not like the fact that black people are five times more likely to die in police custody than their white counterparts. I do not like the fact that black people get convicted at a higher rate than their white counterparts for comparable offences. That is institutional racism. If you can’t name it, you can’t fix it.
The Government’s determination to have a fake war and say that there is no such thing as institutional racism is a disgrace. The Government’s first job should be to protect its citizens—all citizens—and they fail to do that time and again. Let me be clear: it is a matter of national importance that our public institutions are held to account in order to meet and maintain the highest standards and to continue to be held in esteem. It is not just, “Well, that’s the Metropolitan police.” Some people feel protected; some are over-policed, under-protected and underserved. The Lawrence family are an exemplar family, but it has taken its toll. Because they were not able to shame them in any way, it is still continuing.
The police talk about their reputation. To be honest, if the police were a bank account, they would be in severe deficit. We are policed by consent. With every interaction with a citizen they either add to the bank account or withdraw, and the Met police are in debt. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) said that perhaps the Met police should be dismantled. I think the work that needs to be done on the Met cannot be done by anybody who has served in the Met. Cressida Dick was not a good commissioner, and Mark Rowley is slowly losing my confidence. The work that needs to be done is so deep that it needs an independent person from outside who will not be scared by the threats against them by members of the police service who want to keep the status quo. That is not to say that all police officers are corrupt, racist, homophobic or misogynistic—they are not—but the institution is. If we want to make the police service better for the good police officers, we have to change the institution. We also have to change all the institutions that surround the justice system and are underpinned by it, including the courts and the IOPC.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham said, it is now patently evident that those who were tasked with carrying out a public duty of great importance and significance following Stephen’s murder failed gravely to meet the standards that anyone would have expected. In no way do the years that have passed dull the desire to delve deeper into what now seems to be the very murky culture that pervaded the Metropolitan police at the time of Stephen’s murder. What may have been considered speculation during the early years of the investigation can now be classed as fact. When people were saying that the Lawrences were being surveilled, the police said that was not true. When people were saying that the police were being racist, we were told that was not true. Now we know it is all fact.
The catalogue of errors is a testament to the failed institution of the Metropolitan police, which has been resistant to well-overdue reform. There are too many errors for it to be just an error; it is institutional. Just imagine: as we have heard, information about one of the key suspects was not followed up until two decades later, when he was dead. It is almost like somebody did not want to offend the murderer or hold them to account, so they waited till they were dead before admitting that they were involved in the murder of Stephen Lawrence. It is as insulting as it is offensive. To think that nothing will be done about it—we cannot allow that, especially not in this place.
I will end on some words from Baroness Lawrence. In her unique, dignified way—it is incredible—she said that she has been left “bitterly disappointed” by the fact that four former Metropolitan police officers will not face charges of misconduct in public life over their handling of the initial six weeks of the 1993 investigation. One report said that they are old. I do not care how old they are; they should stand trial and be accountable for what they did. They should not be living on a fat police pension. Baroness Lawrence said:
“Not a single police officer lost his job, or will lose his pension, or pay a fine or spend a day behind bars whilst I will continue to grieve the loss of my son. This CPS decision has caused me immense distress and little thought has been given to me as a mother who has lost her son. This is a disgrace.”
Justice delayed is justice denied. It is time that justice is delivered.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) for securing this important debate.
It was an honour to be invited to attend the moving memorial service on the 30th anniversary of Stephen Lawrence’s murder in April, but it is simply staggering that we are still hearing about new instances of police malpractice. It is thanks to the determined and unflinching campaigning of Baroness Lawrence that two men were convicted of Stephen Lawrence’s murder, so I pay tribute to her for her hard work. We must not forget that she and her family were spied on by the special demonstration squad—an example of the suspicion with which the state treats black people who are pursuing justice against all odds.
Sadly, we know from Baroness Casey’s important report that black people still cannot expect to receive equal treatment from the Met compared with some of their fellow Londoners. A horrific example is the case of the police officers taking and sharing pictures of Nicole Smallman and Bibaa Henry after their brutal murders. Sadly, without real commitment to change, we will only see more and more families being let down and failed by the police, with their trauma exacerbated and, more importantly, nobody being held to account.
My hon. Friends have already spoken on this heart-wrenching topic. I want to lay three recommendations before the Minister. First, we need to see leadership from political leaders. Despite the report by Louise Casey, neither the Home Secretary nor the Met commissioner has accepted the labelling of the Met as institutionally racist. Unless they accept that the Met is institutionally racist, the work will go no further, nothing will happen and the Met will stay as it is. It is rotten to the core and needs to be looked at by people who are not in the Met police. Without such work, we as Londoners will only sit back in horror, knowing that another family will be put in the same position as Baroness Lawrence.
Secondly, it is essential that police officers face greater sanctions for misconduct. The absence of greater sanctions will only serve to breed more contempt in the police force. More importantly, police officers will know that nothing will happen to them if they treat Londoners with the same disrespect that they have shown on previous occasions and which is on record.
Thirdly, it is essential that we scrutinise the progress made on implementing all of the recommendations made by the undercover policing inquiry. The report needs to be brought to Parliament so that all parliamentarians can read it and question the Ministers responsible for it. Lastly, I support the creation of a national oversight mechanism to report on the Government making those changes. I hope that the Minister will address those recommendations when she winds up the debate.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Davies.
“We wonder why people become disillusioned. I am sure that all those decades ago when the Macpherson report was first published, there were many who heaved a sigh of relief. Its aim, after all, was to ‘increase trust and confidence in policing amongst minority ethnic communities’. I am also sure that all those decades ago, when the aim of the report was stated to be ‘the elimination of racist prejudice and disadvantage and the demonstration of fairness in all aspects of policing’, many felt they had finally achieved progress. I am sure that everyone involved was aware that Rome was not built in a day, but had some hope, and maybe even allowed themselves a little confidence that life for those experiencing racism would soon change for the better.
The family of Stephen Lawrence, who was murdered and then denied justice because of the colour of his skin—the family in response to whom the Macpherson report came about—perhaps felt when that report was published that his death had not been completely in vain. I have met Stephen’s brother, Stuart Lawrence, and of course we all know or know of his father, Neville Lawrence, and his mother, Baroness Doreen Lawrence”,
who is with us here today. Anyone who listens to Stuart or his parents
“or reads his book, ‘Silence is Not An Option’, begins to understand the catastrophic impact Stephen’s death had on everyone in his family and how they have all had to work so hard, almost every minute of every day, simply to survive.
To a lesser degree, the impact on whole communities was also devastating and life-changing. To have the hope that things would get better for other mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, brothers and sisters when the report was published 22 years ago, and then to come to the conclusion that Doreen Lawrence reached recently, namely that ‘things have become really stagnant and nothing seems to have moved’”.—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 7 July 2022; Vol. 717, c. 419WH.]
You will have noticed, Mr Davies, that I said 22 years ago, when it was in fact 23 years ago. That is because what I have just said is the first page of a speech that I made here in Westminster Hall in July 2022, a year ago, about the Macpherson report. And, as I said, Doreen Lawrence said at the time:
“Things have become stagnant and nothing seems to have moved”.
That is why I am saying this again: because it is still absolutely relevant today. I have been to so many debates on this issue in this place, but nothing ever moves.
How must Baroness Lawrence feel now, when things have moved forward but there is no progress and no justice? The BBC investigation has named the sixth suspect, but there has been no progress and there will never be any justice. A decision has also been made not to prosecute any of the four retired detectives who ran that failed and corrupt investigation, so there will be no progress and no justice either. I heard a police officer say on the radio recently—I cannot remember the exact words—that it was time for us to let them have peace. He was talking about the retired detectives, not the family of Stephen Lawrence.
Baroness Lawrence has said of the BBC investigation:
“It should not have taken a journalist to do the job that a huge, highly resourced institution should have done.”
She is absolutely right. Why did it take the BBC to conduct an investigation when the Met already has far more resources to conduct one?
The Macpherson report is about England and Wales, but Scotland is not immune to any of these issues. I know that this debate is about Stephen Lawrence, but I just want to briefly mention Sheku Bayoh, whom I also talked about in last year’s debate. He died after being stopped in the street by two police officers, who were then joined by another seven police officers, in Kirkcaldy in Fife in May 2015. A public inquiry is under way and I hope to get along to it soon. However, it is now eight years since he died and his family still do not have any answers.
How did a fit young man in his 30s—he was a brother, son, dad, partner and friend—who had no weapons on him end up dead after encountering the police? I cannot answer that question—I will leave that to the inquiry—but I will say that in any other situation in which nine people confronted one person and that one person ended up dead, those nine people would, at the very least, be taken in for questioning. Mr Davies, you will never hear me or anyone else in my party claiming that Scotland or our police force is racism-free.
Let us go back to the speech I made a year ago—I am getting very good at juggling my speeches. I quoted Iain Livingstone, the chief constable of Police Scotland, as saying that there was a need for
“practical, firm, progressive, visible action”.—[Official Report, 7 July 2022; Vol. 717, c. 419WH.]
Now, let me fast-forward to May of this year, when he made a statement addressing the matter of institutional racism in policing. I will read out parts of that statement, because it shows how straightforward it can and should be for the Met and for the Government to acknowledge institutional racism in policing. He said:
“Police Scotland has grown into an organisation known to be compassionate, values based, and highly competent. It is well regarded nationally, extremely well regarded internationally, but I know it can improve, must improve.
Institutional racism, sexism and institutional discrimination have become iconic terms in the vital battle to tackle injustice. Police officers and staff, including police leaders, can be conflicted both in acknowledging their existence and in using such terms, fearing it would unfairly condemn dedicated and honourable colleagues”—
of which, no doubt, there are many—
“or that it means no progress has been made since the 1990s.
Truly, I recognise and understand that conflict. I have experienced that conflict myself over a number of years.
The meaning of institutional racism set out by Sir William Macpherson in 1999 in his report on the appalling murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993 is, rightly, very demanding.
The phrase, the terminology, however, can be and often is misinterpreted or misrepresented as unfair and personal critical assessments of police officers and police staff as individuals.
That is not the case.”
He is right—it is not the case. He went on to say:
“Does institutional discrimination mean our police officers and police staff are racist and sexist? No. It absolutely does not.”
That does not mean that there are not plenty of them who are, but this does not mean that they are. He says:
“I have great confidence in the character and values of our people. I am proud of Police Scotland and I am proud of my colleagues, proud of my officers and staff.
So I know and have shared the reservations and concerns about acknowledging that institutional discrimination exists in policing.
However, it is right for me, the right thing for me to do as Chief Constable, to clearly state that institutional racism, sexism, misogyny and discrimination exist. Police Scotland is institutionally racist and discriminatory. Publicly acknowledging these institutional issues exist is essential to our absolute commitment to championing equality and becoming an anti-racist Service. It is also critical to our determination to lead wider change in society.”
That is what the Met should do and what the Government should do—just acknowledge it. It is a start, but it is a really good start. Why can they not just say the words?
Humza Yousaf, Scotland’s First Minister, said that this statement was “monumental” and “historic”. He said:
“I hope that it also serves as a reminder to all of us that, whatever organisation we belong to, we have a responsibility to question the organisations that we lead…and to reflect on whether we are doing enough to dismantle not only institutional racism but the structural discrimination that exists for many people”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 25 May 2023; c. 10.]
The chief constable made the point that words are not enough, and he is absolutely right. Police Scotland has made a great start, and this Government and the Met police need to look at what Police Scotland has said and just own up to it. It is only words; it has to be followed up by actions. We now have a Prime Minister and a First Minister of Scotland who come from a minority ethnic background, but let us not get carried away and think that that has solved racism, because it certainly will not. Again, it is a start, but it is about what we do after that.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford). He gave us an utterly shocking and deeply depressing story, but it is one that must be told over and over, and it is one that we should never stop being shocked at. That is what happens—we hear something so many times, and we get used to it—but we must never stop being shocked at it.
I support the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) in asking the Government about the plan for justice for the Lawrence family. Is there one? If so, what is it? The hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) talked, in a really emotional speech, about the impact on her and about her visit to Elephant and Castle. She described so well and so vividly the swagger of those murderers, who knew they were being protected.
The hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) and others reminded us that the Lawrence family were spied on. We need to keep telling everybody that, because whenever I tell anybody, they cannot believe it. The first time you hear it, you cannot forget it. We have to keep telling everybody what happened to them. She also called for more sanctions. I was stunned when I discovered how few sanctions there are against serving police officers right across these islands.
Dawn Butler
With regard to sanctions, is the hon. Member surprised, like me, that if a police officer fails their vetting, they can still work in the police, and nothing happens to them? What we need—I hope the Minister is listening—is independent vetting and psychological testing for every single serving police officer.
Anne McLaughlin
I absolutely agree. One of the things that shocked me most when I read through the briefing notes was that someone can fail their vetting but still be a serving police officer. It did not just shock me; it terrified me. I hope I never need to come in contact with a serving police officer who has failed their vetting.
I end by simply expressing solidarity with anyone fighting racism. I will do my best to be an ally. I express solidarity especially with the family of Sheku Bayoh—I offer to do whatever I can, and hope they can draw strength from others as they go through the public inquiry—and most particularly with the family of Stephen Lawrence, for the incredible strength they have shown, which they should never have had to show, over the many decades they have spent fighting for justice for their son.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Davies.
May I start by echoing everybody else in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) for giving such a detailed and harrowing list of all the failures in the way that this case was investigated, from the start right to the present day? There are some parallels with other cases, such as the Stephen Port murders, where four young men were murdered and multiple others were raped, and the Daniel Morgan inquiry, following his murder in 1987. There are similarities in terms of professional curiosity and not being interested in following leads, unconscious bias and structural bias—the structures of the institutions themselves not being equipped to solve these murders—and the conclusion, in some of those cases, that it was down to incompetence rather than corruption, when it is hard to see how there was not corruption.
Dawn Butler
The Daniel Morgan inquiry said that the police were institutionally corrupt; indeed, Cressida Dick was named in that report as somebody who stopped the investigation from continuing. Does my hon. Friend agree that every single report on the Met highlights another area of discrimination that needs to be tackled?
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She is right, and one thing that Baroness Casey found in her report was a defensiveness. That is why it was first suggested in the Daniel Morgan inquiry that we should introduce a legal duty of candour, because there is a big difference between that and asking somebody for information. In that case, the Met was asked for certain information and it gave it, but it also knew other things that it did not offer. That is the difference with a duty of candour, and that came from the Hillsborough inquiry. It is one of the law changes that the Hillsborough campaigners are asking for, because, similarly, information was not willingly given and there was a defensiveness.
Janet Daby
The reason for a duty of candour—which is something that the Victims and Prisoners Bill is introducing—is absolutely what my hon. Friend has set out, but it is also to avoid corruption, and corruption has taken place. The duty of candour can stop it, and it starts from the premise that corruption on the part of the police has been known in very serious cases.
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the institutional problems is that we do not have systems in place to stop these things happening in the first place; therefore they can happen, and they do.
My hon. Friend set up the all-party parliamentary group on children in police custody and will be looking at the disproportionality of children in custody. She has a lot of expertise in that area and spoke very eloquently about it. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) gave an incredibly powerful speech and of course reminded us about the Lawrence family being tracked—which, as the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin), said, is one of the most horrific aspects of all of this. My hon. Friend said that we are in this place not for show but to make things better, and that is incredibly important: we are not here to prove a point one way or the other, but to make things better. I hope that the Minister responds in that spirit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) mentioned the murders of Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman, which are of course all wrapped up in the same issues and are, again, some of the most horrific things I have ever read about. The grace of their mother in showing leadership and behaving in the way she has—similarly to how Baroness Lawrence has behaved—is also quite extraordinary. I know for a fact that I would not behave in that way.
Dawn Butler
Mina Smallman, the mother of Bibaa and Nicole, is absolutely phenomenal. Is it not also the case that mothers who have lost their children in such tragic circumstances should not need to be so graceful or dignified to get justice for their children? But they often need to be.
Sarah Jones
That is a really important point. On that point, it is no coincidence that the majority of my colleagues on the Labour Benches who are speaking today are women who happen to be black. It should not be on their shoulders to fix these problems. They have experienced racism all through their lives, and now we expect them to fix the problems as well. That is not right. We have the same debate when we talk about the need for more black officers in policing. Yes, we need more, but it should not be on them to solve the problems of the police. It should be on all of us. We all need to take that responsibility, especially those of us who have not had to bear the burden of racism.
Janet Daby
Just to clarify, I do not see it as my job to bear that or to fix it; I see it as the responsibility of our whole community. It is also very much the responsibility of the Government, and it is the responsibility of us in the Opposition to ensure that the Government are doing what they need to do to address society’s wrongdoings, such as discrimination in the area of racism and prejudice and in other areas. Obviously, we are speaking about this issue because we know that the police have not dealt with this situation as they should have; indeed, they have protected themselves rather than protecting, in this case, the innocent.
Sarah Jones
That is a very good point, and I completely understand what my hon. Friend says.
Like everybody else, I pay tribute to the Lawrence family and to Baroness Lawrence, who is here today. They have had to fight and campaign for so long. We think of them every time there is another news story and they have to relive the trauma of what happened, which must be incredibly difficult. They have faced what no parent should ever have to bear.
The failures in this case run deep, as we have heard. It is extremely troubling that, after 30 years, information about those failings is still emerging. It is also unacceptable that the Crown Prosecution Service sat on the IOPC file—the dossier into alleged mishandling—for three years. We need an independent investigation into what happened, so that we can establish everything that has gone wrong. As has already been mentioned, Baroness Lawrence has said that she is bitterly disappointed and will be seeking a review, which limits, up to a point, what we can say about it. It is clear, and the message to the Minister is clear: the Home Office must not stand back. The Government have a role here and real leadership is needed. We need the Government to commit to engaging seriously with the issue of police reform, to avoid repeating failures and rebuild trust in communities that have lost that trust.
Other Members have talked about the journey from the Macpherson report to the Casey report. Undoubtedly some good changes were made in that period, but equally Louise Casey finds that a lot of things have not improved. I pay tribute to Baroness Casey for the thoroughness of her review. She described the murder of Stephen Lawrence and the Macpherson report as irrevocably changing the nature of policing in the UK. It changed the understanding, the investigation and the prosecution of racist crimes nationwide.
Macpherson rightly called for police forces to be representative of their communities, but we have made very slow progress on that front. At the current rate of recruitment and attrition, the Met will manage to increase its black, Asian and ethnic minority representation to only 22% of all officers to reflect the population by 2055. If the Met continued to improve its black, Asian and ethnic minority recruitment by an additional 1% each year from this year onwards, it would take nearly 40 years to reach an officer group that was proportionate. I represent Croydon Central, and I remember going out with the new recruits, who are the ones who carry out stop and search in our communities. There were 80 of them, and not a single one of them was black. There is a very diverse population in Croydon, so that does not work and it needs to be changed.
The trust that people have in policing is an important part of being able to solve crimes. If people do not trust the police, the police cannot solve crimes. In 2021-22, only 43% of black Londoners believed that the Met did a good job locally, while 33% of black Londoners thought that the Met did a good job across London. Only 46% of Londoners think that the Met treats everyone fairly, and only 14% of black Londoners think that the Met treats black people fairly. Looking at the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime surveys, we can see that those figures have fallen—rapidly, in some cases—in recent years. Things have got worse.
It has already been mentioned that Louise Casey talked about black Londoners being under-protected and over-policed. That is a really important issue that I would like the Minister to comment on. I think we are going backwards, and the approach that the Government are taking is making the issue harder to tackle. Most hon. Members present were in the Chamber recently when the Home Secretary made a statement about stop and search. She has gone further than even the previous Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), in almost denying that there is a problem that needs fixing. For example, she said:
“Suggestions that stop and search is a means of victimising young black men have it precisely the wrong way around…Black people account for about 3% of our population, yet almost a third of under-25s killed by knives are black.”—[Official Report, 19 June 2023; Vol. 734, c. 569.]
However, that implies that those figures are somehow equivalent, and of course, they are not. Something like 120 young people under the age of 25 are murdered every year, so we are talking about 40 or 50 young black people, tops, and 3% is 2 million people. So there are 2 million people who are black in this country, and a very small number of murders, so we cannot equate the two. The implication that the Home Secretary seemed to be making—that that meant it was fine that people were being over-policed—is very dangerous and sad. I do not think that even this Government have been saying up to this point.
The under-protection of black people in London in terms of crime is really acute. The figures showing evidence of that are in Louise Casey’s report. Indeed, disproportionality is not questioned by anybody—apart from potentially our Home Secretary. Whether it is the National Police Chiefs’ Council in its report on racism—which covers the whole of policing—or the inspectorate, the IOPC or the Met itself, everybody accepts that there is a huge problem. I worry that the Government are taking a line that questions that. In Wales—the hon. Member for Glasgow North East said it is similar in Scotland—there is an active anti-racism strategy led by the Government across the board, so it is much easier for the police and the leaders of policing to do the right thing. It is actively harder for them to the right thing under this Government, which is a great shame.
It is clear that we need change across the board. Labour wants a complete overhaul of the way the police are vetted and recruited. We want misconduct to be dealt with and training to be introduced. All those things need significant reform. The issue of vetting is even worse than hon. Members have said. It is not just that people can fail their vetting and still be police officers; it is not among a police officer’s powers to sack someone because they have failed their vetting.
There are problems across the board with the way that vetting, interviews and misconduct processes work, and structural racism is built into all those processes. Black police officers are much more likely to have a much shorter time in the Met and are much more likely to be subject to disciplinary proceedings. It is at every level, so we need to reform all those things.
We need to look at things such as stop and search, Child Q strip searches and adultification. There needs to be much better training, and the law needs to reflect what is right and wrong. The approach to children must be much more child-centred and safeguarding-centred.
People have asked whether we should break up the Met. Louise Casey said that we should give the new commissioner two years, and if at that point we have not seen significant reform and change, there is a case for breaking it up. An administrative change to structures does not necessarily change anything. Putting a group in a different team does not necessarily lead to change, but Louise Casey sensibly concluded that if the pace of change is not sufficient and we do not see more improvements, we need to do more.
I have talked about the change that we need to see, and that sits alongside the impact on policing. The good police officers in the Met struggle to do a good job. Louise Casey said that austerity has “disfigured” the Met. There is an absence of neighbourhood policing, so police officers do not have the ability to build relationships with their communities. We have seen groups such as the Territorial Support Group go into communities they do not know and make bad judgments about who they stop and search.
Across the country, we have a shortfall of 7,000 detectives. We do not have enough good detectives who can solve crimes, be curious, ask the right questions and be trained. Although there is now direct entry into detective work—which is good and has led to more diversity in the workforce, so that a different type of person joining the police—we need to go much further. There needs to be much better training on issues such as racism and violence against women and girls. We need to change these ingrained cultures through better training.
I ask the Minister to respond to all the points that have been made. The Met has struggled to reform, but these problems exist across the country—six forces are in special measures—so what will the Home Secretary and the Home Office do to raise standards and reform policing? Does the Minister accept that there is disproportionality within the system and structural issues that mean that racism, misogyny, sexism and homophobia continue unchanged? Will she back the calls from everyone here to change the way we vet and train officers, and deal with police misconduct?
Our thoughts are with the Lawrence family and with Baroness Lawrence, who is in the Public Gallery. I am so sorry that she has had to go through this. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central said, we are here for a reason—it is not just for show. We need change, but even after so many years, it is possible. These things are not inevitable; we can and must change things. I hope the Minister sees the urgency of the task.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Sarah Dines)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I am pleased to see the Public Gallery so full. I am particularly pleased to see Baroness Lawrence here. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) for securing the debate. As was abundantly clear throughout his remarks, this is a subject of particular significance for him and his constituents. I appreciate the insight, work and knowledge he has brought to bear on this subject and discussion. My thanks also go to other Members who have contributed.
The murder of Stephen Lawrence remains one of the most disgraceful and devastating crimes our country has ever seen. We all remember the collective sense of grief and shock we felt at the time, and the impact that that heinous act has had on all of us 30 years on. The case left an indelible mark on policing, and that theme has been explored today and in previous debates. Above all, it is important to remember that this started with the loss of a young man with the whole of his life ahead of him. Although it is understandable that our discussions often focus on the wider questions for policing and our society more generally, we must always keep that terrible tragedy at the forefront of our minds.
We speak of Stephen and the future that was denied to him. We think of his family, who have endured a long and difficult fight for justice, and who have been indefatigable in keeping his memory alive. I fully understand the continued interest in this case and will endeavour to be as helpful as I can and as full in my comments as possible, in the short time that remains. That said, I hope colleagues will understand if I restrict my remarks to some degree, due to the sensitivities and, of course, the fact that the Metropolitan police is operationally independent.
I turn to 26 June, when the Met issued an updated statement on Stephen’s murder. The Met recognised that although two men were convicted of Stephen’s murder in 2012, other suspects have not yet been brought to justice. The Met statement explained that Matthew White, who passed away in 2021, first came to its attention as a witness in 1993. He was arrested and interviewed in March 2000 and in December 2013, and a file was received by the Crown Prosecution Service in May 2005 and October 2014.
The Met stated that on both occasions the CPS advised that there was no realistic prospect of conviction of White for any offence. Deputy Assistant Commissioner Matt Ward said, as part of that statement, that unfortunately too many mistakes were made in the initial investigation and they continue to have an impact. On the 30th anniversary of Stephen’s murder, Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley apologised for the Met’s failings, and the deputy assistant commissioner repeated that apology.
I know that that update from the Met will have come as a blow to Stephen’s family. Their resilience and courage in seeking justice has shone through for the last three decades. Their frustration is understandable, and it is right that the police have apologised. In May, the Met commissioned a routine forensic review of key exhibits to consider whether new scientific processes could advance the case. That investigation remains in an active phase. As I have said, I fully understand the interest in the investigation and the desire for answers, but I hope colleagues will understand if I refrain from further speculation or comment in that regard.
The IOPC investigation collated evidence related to the actions and omissions of the four officers in the early stages of the investigation into Stephen’s murder. A file was then provided to the CPS to answer whether anyone should face charges. This was a vast investigation that had been undertaken by the National Crime Agency under the IOPC’s direction. It involved the gathering and analysis of several million pages of information and intelligence, spanning many years. I understand that NCA investigators also interviewed more than 150 people, including serving and former police officers and staff involved in the original murder inquiry, relevant witnesses and others, including journalists with in-depth knowledge of the original investigation.
The CPS applied tests, as set out in the code for Crown prosecutors, regarding the evidence provided. I recognise that the announcement made by the CPS that no criminal charges will be brought against the four suspects will be very disappointing for the Lawrences and Duwayne Brooks. The CPS has offered the victims the right to review its decision, so it would be inappropriate for me to comment at this stage.
I turn to the points made by the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) about the Met needing to change and the Casey review. The publication of Baroness Casey’s report on the standards of behaviour and internal culture of the Met made for very sobering reading, and it is paramount that public trust in the Met is restored. Although primary accountability lies with the Mayor of London, I know the Home Secretary will continue to hold the commissioner and the Mayor accountable for delivering the necessary improvements, as will the Policing Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who apologises for not being here today.
Although we have seen progress in several areas since the awful murder of Stephen, there is much to do. It is imperative that by working with key partners, including His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services, the Met continues the process of restoring public confidence that it is getting the high-quality service that people desire and that we all have a right to expect. The Government have confidence in the commissioner’s leadership, and in his plans to turn around the Met and ensure that the force is delivering for all communities.
I turn now to the points made by the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) in relation to institutional racism. Without question, discriminatory attitudes and behaviours have no place in policing, and any allegations of racism are deeply disturbing. We expect police officers to take urgent action to root out discrimination. Allegations of police wrongdoing are dealt with under a comprehensive framework, either by police forces or the IOPC. I understand that there is much debate around the definition of the term “institutional racism” in the Met. The commissioner is committed to tackling issues of racism and building back trust in the police in the form of the force’s “Turnaround Plan 2023-2025”—the two years that have been mentioned—which has core themes of more trust, less crime and high standards. The most important thing is to judge the Met on its actions rather than words.
I turn to other recommendations made by the hon. Member for Edmonton. I listened carefully to what she said about her four recommendations, and her second recommendation was to have greater sanctions. The Casey review has looked at the effectiveness of the disciplinary system, so that the public can be confident that it is fair but effective at removing officers who fall far short of the standards expected of them. I have met the commissioner, and I have heard that he is extremely interested in this area. At this stage, I have confidence in him.
The Casey review also examined whether the current three-tier performance system is effective in being able to dismiss officers who fail to perform the duties expected of their rank and role. To restore public confidence in policing, the Home Office and the police forces have undertaken a series of actions to ensure that police vetting is fit for purpose, including the need for police forces to check their officers and staff against the national police database, and to root out those unfit for service. Officers who fall short of the standard expected of them must be identified and dealt with appropriately, and I look forward to work being done in this area.
Clive Efford
In relation to the murder of Stephen Lawrence, I have gone back over all the evidence, and there were clear failings in the investigation—so many in certain aspects of it that it is difficult to say it was incompetence. If we do not have an independent investigation, away from the Met, how will the public have confidence in the outcome?
Miss Dines
I look forward to the work that Baroness Casey outlined in terms of having more confidence in the Met police. It is right that such work is done, that there is a little time given to do that work, and that we must expect progress.
I will try to respond to all the recommendations put forward by the hon. Member for Edmonton. In relation to scrutiny, I am aware that members of the Lawrence family have been granted core participant status in the undercover policing inquiry. The inquiry was established in 2015 to examine undercover policing operations by English and Welsh forces since 1968. On 29 June 2023, the undercover policing inquiry published an interim report for tranche 1 of its investigations. The full report is publicly available, and I am sure Members have had a look at it. Tranche 1 of the inquiry’s investigations examined special demonstration squad officers and managers, and those affected by deployments between 1968 and 1982.
The Home Office is grateful to Sir John Mitting for the report, and the Department will carefully consider its contents. It is an interim report and is restricted to the time period covered by tranche 1. As the inquiry’s investigations are ongoing, it would not be appropriate for the Government to comment at this stage, but the recommendation suggested by the hon. Member for Edmonton is very much in mind.
Miss Dines
Very briefly. There is a lot to get through and I need to respond to everything everyone said.
Sarah Jones
When the Government respond, it would be helpful for a Minister to come to the House and make an oral statement so that we can all have the opportunity to comment, because we have not had that debate.
Miss Dines
I am grateful for that intervention. I will pass that message on to the Home Secretary and the Policing Minister.
On police culture, I disagree with one thing that the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) said, which was that the Home Secretary was not leading enough in her role—I think “standing back” was the phrase that the hon. Member used. That has not been my experience of the efforts put in by the Home Secretary, who has made it consistently clear, both in public and in private to me, that the culture and standards in policing need to improve as a matter of urgency. I hope we can agree on that.
Examining the root causes of poor and toxic cultures is a key focus of part 2 of the Angiolini inquiry, which is now under way. The College of Policing is also currently updating the code of ethics, which plays a key role in instilling the right principles and standards from the start of a police officer’s career. The Policing Minister is certainly holding leaders to account in this area.
I will briefly mention that whenever, in my safeguarding role, I visit a police force that I have not visited before, one of the first questions I ask is: what is the ethnic diversity of new recruits and existing officers? That must be very much in everybody’s mind. We need a police force that reflects better the whole of society.
The Government and the public rightly expect the highest standards from our police officers. The ability of the police to perform their core functions—tackling crime and keeping the public safe—is dependent on their capacity to maintain the confidence of the public. As part of the Inclusive Britain strategy, the Government are committed to developing a new national framework for policing partners, including police and crime commissioners.
Police powers such as stop and search and the use of force must be scrutinised properly at a local level. That will help to create tangible improvements in trust and confidence between the police and the communities they serve by improving public understanding of how and why the police use their powers and will help account for any disparities. Alongside that, the Home Office is committed to seeking and removing unnecessary barriers that prevent the use of body-worn video, which will be implemented in the framework. Work is well under way on the community scrutiny framework, which we aim to publish in due course.
Abena Oppong-Asare
Will the Government look at the use of tasers? Members of the community are concerned about them and the way they are used.
Miss Dines
I will ask the Policing Minister to write to the hon. Member about that. We have only two minutes left, and I want to leave a minute for the Member in charge to wind up.
I offer my thanks to the hon. Member for Eltham for securing this debate. I am acutely conscious of the significance of the case not only for the Lawrence family, but for the Britain that I want to see and for Britain’s policing as a whole. My thoughts are with the family of Stephen for the loss of their loved one. They had such a shattering loss. We cannot bring him back, but we can do more to strain every sinew to learn every possible lesson from that awful crime.
Clive Efford
It is a tragedy that the case still casts a shadow over the Metropolitan police. The mistakes that have been made, particularly those in relation to evidence relating to Matthew White, are too numerous to be coincidental. They are worthy of an investigation independent of the Metropolitan police. Even a review by Chief Inspector Clive Driscoll might suffice, because he is the one who stands out among the Met officers as somebody committed to seeing justice in this case. We often hear people talk about victims; if there any victims we should listen to, it is the Lawrence family. We should talk to them about how we can resolve the issue and take it forward.
When Cressida Dick closed down the investigation into Stephen’s murder, she said that no further viable lines of inquiry were open. That was not true. The Met have to accept that. We cannot leave it there.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Metropolitan Police investigation into the murder of Stephen Lawrence.
Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights: Overseas Aid
(10 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
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
I will call Sarah Champion to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. As they are both experienced parliamentarians, they will not really need me to say that—as is the convention for 30-minute debates—there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered sexual and reproductive health and rights and overseas aid.
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your guidance, Mr Davies.
The Minister is well versed in this topic. He knows that it is essential we ensure that women and girls are empowered to make decisions about their own bodies and that they are free to pursue education, employment and prosperity on their chosen path in life, wherever they are in the world. This is a cause that I care deeply about, and I am delighted to have sexual and reproductive health and rights—SRHR—as a key priority this year for the Select Committee on International Development, which I chair. As part of the Committee’s inquiry, I am very much looking forward to hearing from the Minister of State for Development and Africa on this issue in September. As the inquiry is ongoing, I will focus on a separate piece of work, largely carried out by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. I will also refer to evidence that has been submitted to IDC.
Last week, I had the pleasure of hosting the launch of RCOG’s new report, “Getting Back on Track: The Case for Reinvestment in Global Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights”. The report notes the achievements of UK advocacy, leadership and overseas aid on SRHR over the last decade, as well as the impact of recent aid cuts on SRHR and gender equality. The testimonies from RCOG members and other healthcare professionals working on women’s health around the world who have experienced the devastating impact of cuts on the frontline are essential to understanding the issue. I strongly encourage the Minister and his officials to consider closely the findings and recommendations of the report.
The moral obligation to support women and girls on SRHR is clear. Bodily autonomy is the foundation upon which women and girls can exercise their full rights. The rights of women and girls are being rolled back in some parts of the world, which is infuriating and shows that the UK’s advocacy for global gender equality and SRHR has never been more important.
My Committee has heard from several organisations about the importance of UK overseas aid to delivering comprehensive SRHR services and achieving universal access for every woman and girl. UK aid can and does make a real difference to the lives of women and girls around the world, but we must continue and expand our support in a sustainable way.
It is important to look at this issue through an intersectional lens. The Committee has heard that the most marginalised face additional barriers to accessing sexual and reproductive health services. They are often not delivered in a way that is accessible to women with disabilities. That could be as simple as a lack of a wheelchair ramp into the clinic or a lack of sign language interpretation. LGBTQ+ people can also find it difficult to access services due to the stigma, discrimination and even criminalisation of same-sex relationships and gender expression. We must do all we can to change that. I am very proud that our embassies around the world stand up for those rights.
Not only is investing in SRHR the right thing to do, but it makes financial sense. United Nations Population Fund research shows that for every $1 invested in family planning and maternal health in low-income countries, over $8 is accrued by averting unintended pregnancies and reducing the demand for, and cost of, maternal and other health services. Organisations such as the UNFPA are vital actors in the SRHR space, which is why it was so disheartening to hear it tell the Committee recently of the devastating impact of UK Government cuts on its services. In 2021, UK aid to UNPFA’s supplies partnership was cut by 85% with very little warning. Its only clue as to what was coming was from media reports about the UK’s reduction in official development assistance spending from 0.7% to 0.5%.
UNFPA provides 40% of the world’s contraceptive supply, reaching approximately 20 million women and young people every year. It told the Committee that because of the lack of funding, it had to immediately cut the commodities it provides—contraception—by 30% and has since had to make sweeping cuts across the board. While there has been a path to the restoration of funding for UNFPA supplies, the UK Government ultimately remain off track to meet their 2019 commitment of £425 million, with support for the UNFPA’s core operating fund remaining significantly reduced. Will the Minister make a commitment today that the UK Government will restore support to the UNFPA’s core operating fund alongside their existing commitments to their supplies partnership?
Supporting women and girls to take control of their reproductive health is essential in achieving the UK’s international development objectives, in particular its ambitions for gender equality. Government investment must reflect that. I understand that the Minister knows this, but action, not just empty promises, is desperately needed. Women and girls being able to access their reproductive health rights also underpins the success of all three of the ambitions of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s women and girls strategy. Girls with access to education, safe and sensitive contraception and abortion services are less likely to drop out of school. Enabling women and girls to choose if and when they have children frees them to pursue employment and participate more fully in social and political life. Empowering women to make decisions about their SRHR is essential in tackling gender-based violence.
In its new report, the RCOG makes the case that if the UK Government are to be successful in achieving their key aims in the women and girls strategy, those aims must be matched with dedicated and sufficient long-term funding. Otherwise, it simply will not work.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Dr Poulter
I thank the hon. Member for giving way. She is making a good speech, and I congratulate her on securing the debate. One area that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has focused on in the past, and rightly so, is the high rates of maternal and new-born baby morbidity and mortality in many low and middle-income countries, particularly in Africa. Will the hon. Member address that point and make some suggestions to the Minister about how Britain can better support that agenda through its aid strategy and improve safety around pregnancy and childbirth?
Sarah Champion
I will indeed cover that, and also benign gynaecological conditions, which are another major killer for women. I congratulate the hon. Member on all his work on global health over the years. He continues to be an advocate in this place.
UK aid has contributed significantly and meaningfully towards ensuring that all women and girls can access their sexual and reproductive health and rights, and we should all be proud of that track record. RCOG members in Pakistan who had been providing training as part of the UK’s women’s integrated sexual health—WISH—programme reported dramatic increases in access to safe abortion care, post-abortion care and family planning by those who participated in their schemes. However, the decision to cut ODA threatens to stall or even reverse that progress around the world.
WISH is supposed to be the Government’s flagship sexual and reproductive health programme, but even that is not safe from the cuts. MSI Reproductive Choices had its funding under the WISH programme slashed by 78%. My Committee has also heard that a three-year health programme for the most marginalised communities in Bangladesh received a £1.1 million cut to its £2 million budget two years in, with no notice whatsoever. A direct grant in Ghana, which was providing safe birth, child health and psychoeducation for pregnant women and mothers through building new maternal health self-help support groups and outreach clinics, received a 25% cut.
The Government are not putting their money where their mouth is. The most recent data shows that bilateral spending on SRHR decreased by more than 50% from £515 million in 2019 to £242 million in 2021. The Minister is aware that it is not good enough, and I am aware that he is trying to change it, so I look forward to hearing more about that in his remarks.
Estimates by the Guttmacher Institute suggest that the cuts could already have resulted in 9.5 million fewer women and girls having access to modern methods of contraception, 4.3 million more unintended pregnancies, 1.4 million more unsafe abortions and, as the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) said, a possible 8,000 more avoidable maternal deaths.
Countries with the greatest need for SRHR funding and programmes have been hit the hardest by the cuts, and within those countries, the most marginalised are often the most affected. Professor Friday Okonofua, an obstetrician and gynaecologist based in Benin City, Nigeria, said in RCOG report that it is the most marginalised people who are reliant on donor-funded services. In Nigeria, where nearly 80% of health payments are out of pocket, the loss of funding from the UK Government has only widened this dire gap in services.
Making donations towards SRHR in humanitarian crises is welcome, but not enough. UK support must be in the form of sustained programming that delivers against the UK’s commitments to the UN sustainable development goals, and promoting the health of women and girls must be the backbone of international development. As RCOG recommends, will the Minister commit to restoring funding for SRHR, and spend £500 million each year for the next three years on SRHR programming and supplies?
RCOG is calling on the Government not only to restore investment in SRHR, but to strengthen their global advocacy on SRHR by investing in new and existing global partnerships and collaborations. The UK’s financial commitment to the Family Planning 2020 initiative had a significant impact on the global funding landscape for SRHR. It contributed to enabling an additional 24 million women and girls to access family planning services. I ask the Minister again to make a financial commitment to the Family Planning 2030 initiative, so that we can continue the programme’s success.
Only by linking our national actions to global goals and commitments can we hope to achieve truly universal access to SRHR for every woman and girl. As well as being one of the largest donors of support for SRHR supplies, the UK has been one of the most progressive in its advocacy. RCOG is calling on the Government to strengthen their global advocacy on SRHR by championing stigmatised issues such as abortion care. That is something I care about deeply, particularly as abortion rights are being rolled back around the world. I was proud that the UK co-led a statement at the UN General Assembly last year on the importance of respecting the bodily autonomy and SRHR of women and girls. It has also been reassuring to see the UK Government commit to prioritising safe abortion care as part of their commitment to supporting SRHR in the women and girls strategy.
Mainstreaming safe abortion services and post-abortion care is essential to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality. Unsafe abortion remains one of the world’s leading causes of maternal mortality. The risk of dying from an unsafe abortion is highest for women in Africa, where nearly half of all abortions happen in potentially dangerous circumstances. In his response, will the Minister say how the Government plan to champion safe abortion care in their programming, and in nations’ universal healthcare plans, as part of an effort to strengthen health systems?
We have seen the success of telemedicine in early abortion care in the UK. Guidance from RCOG, the World Health Organisation and other authorities on clinical standards affirms that telemedicine is a safe and effective delivery model for expanding access to abortion care. RCOG has encouraged the FCDO to invest in telemedicine and in self-management of abortion in settings where that can offer safe additional pathways to increased access. As RCOG has suggested, I would like the UK Government to champion the prioritisation of women’s and girls’ gynaecological health needs on the global health agenda.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for securing this debate. Does she agree that the Government are right to commit to focusing spending on women and girls, and particularly on maternal mental health? Will she call for the UK to publish a voluntary national review on the sustainable development goals, given the importance of this subject?
Sarah Champion
I absolutely support what the hon. Lady says. She is a member of the International Development Committee, and the Chair of the International Development Sub-Committee on the work of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact. She has always been a champion on these issues, and the Minister has heard what she said.
The FCDO’s programming does not address the global burden of gynaecological disease as a priority in its own right, or as a key element of its integrated SRHR response. That is a glaring omission. Forthcoming RCOG research shows that overall morbidity for women and girls due to so-called benign gynaecological conditions outweighs—I was stunned when I heard this—the combined morbidity from malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS in low and middle-income countries; yet gynaecological conditions are not in the FCDO’s strategy. There is an urgent need for the UK Government and donors around the world to afford gynaecological disease the same priority as maternal mortality and diseases such as malaria, TB and HIV/AIDS. Can the Minister look into that?
As a first step, RCOG and I are seeking a commitment from the UK Government to championing the issue by investing in the collection of data and research on the scale of the burden, so that we build strong evidence on which to base future investment. Investing in quality SRHR training for all healthcare workers should be a top priority. At present, the workforce meets only 41% of the needs of low-income countries. A lack of skilled workers is a major barrier to making universal health coverage a reality. I welcome the Government’s commitment to strengthening the workforce as part of their contribution to that agenda, but as RCOG recommends, we need greater investment to support task-shifting and task-sharing between different groups and levels of healthcare workers. That is essential if we are to address shortages; support the delivery of comprehensive, integrated SRHR services, including expanded access to abortion care and long-acting reversible contraception; and support the diagnosis and treatment of gynaecological disease at the earliest stage.
The new report from RCOG is an important reminder to us all—and to the Minister—of our responsibility to women and girls around the world, who rely on our Government’s support for their essential healthcare. It should also serve as a call to action, so that we resume the progress that is needed to achieve universal access to SRHR. I urge the Minister to seriously consider the report’s recommendations for investment, as well as the points that I have raised today. We must stand together, alongside women and girls everywhere, and continue to advocate for their health, empowerment, and equality.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
It is a tremendous pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and the first time that I have done so. This is a subject that you and I have discussed many times over the last 10 or 15 years, so I know that you take a great interest in it.
My pleasure in appearing before you, Mr Davies, is exceeded only by my pleasure in responding to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), with whom I have had many interactions. As she knows well, I agree with a large amount of what she says, and never more so than in today’s debate. I pay tribute to her for securing the debate, and for the work she does on the International Development Committee, together with its members. It is widely regarded as being among the most expert Committees in the Houses of Parliament. I look forward to giving evidence to her Committee in September, in its inquiry on the important matters that we are discussing. If I do not answer her points in sufficient detail, I know perfectly well that she will pursue me on them.
I also thank the hon. Lady for what she said about the work of British diplomatic missions overseas; I will pass on to the missions her generous words, which I know they will appreciate. As a result of the reduction in the ODA budget from 0.7% to 0.5%, incredibly difficult decisions had to be made, and that imposed an enormous strain on those who are now, but were not then, my officials. Many extraordinarily difficult decisions were made, in furthering the will of Parliament that the budget should be cut, but we are in a better position than we were. I hope that that will become clear next week when we report back to Parliament.
Every woman and girl should have control over her own body and her own life. She should be able to make informed decisions about sex, and whether and when to have children. She should have access to good-quality sexual and reproductive health services and be able to realise her rights. That is far from the case for too many women in too many countries, which is why universal access to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health and rights forms an important part of the British Government’s approach to development and diplomacy. Our commitment to promoting those rights is set out in our strategies on international development, global health and women and girls, and is a central element of our approach to ending the preventable deaths of mothers, babies and children.
We face many challenges in achieving our aims. Global progress on reducing maternal death rates had stagnated between 2016 and 2020, even before the impact of the covid-19 pandemic. That is why I am championing our efforts to help end the preventable deaths of mothers, babies and children by 2030. The campaign joins up efforts right across the system, on issues including water, sanitation and hygiene, good nutrition, clean air, access to new health technologies, and a supportive environment for sexual and reproductive health and rights, which the hon. Member for Rotherham spoke about so clearly.
Let me turn to the worrying trends that are putting at risk the progress we have made on sexual and reproductive health and gender equality. Attempts to roll back the rights of women, girls and members of the LGBT+ community are increasingly well funded and well organised, and we are determined to confront them. Britain is a proud champion of these hard-won rights. We continue to promote and protect them around the world by working closely with our allies, including in the multilateral sphere. We must challenge the lies, polarisation and division that are undermining that progress. That is why the UK led a landmark joint statement at the UN Third Committee last October. Along with 71 global partners, we committed to working tirelessly to advance gender equality, and to supporting the rights of all women and girls. At this year’s Women Deliver conference in Kigali, the UK will help to catalyse united action against the roll-back of women and girls’ rights, and action to further gender equality. There is much to do, but there is cause for hope and the UK has a key role to play.
I turn to another challenge that we face, which is the reduced domestic Government funding for sexual and reproductive health and rights across the world, which was prompted by the covid pandemic and crises around the world. The UK’s official development assistance has also reduced. It remains the Government’s policy that we will get overseas spending back to 0.7% when the economy allows, but meanwhile we are doing as much as we can to find multipliers that can enhance and augment our taxpayers’ money. We have set out a strong pathway towards that through our strategies on women and girls and on ending preventable deaths.
We remain a key supporter of sexual and reproductive health and rights, and we have a significant portfolio of programmes and policies. For example, through FP2030—the global family planning partnership—the UK is helping partners around the world to advocate for better access to family planning. The global financing facility supports stronger, more sustainable access to health systems. The women’s integrated sexual health programme has enabled more than 9.5 million women and girls in Africa and Asia to use modern methods of contraception, and the UK remains a world leader in efforts to end the AIDS epidemic, including through our health system strengthening work, our work to end preventable deaths, and support for the World Health Organisation and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. We are pushing for equitable access to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services, dismantling barriers to access, targeting underserved groups and championing SRHR for all.
Sarah Champion
On FP2030 and the women’s integrated sexual health programme, can the Minister talk about the financial commitments that go alongside the commitment to leading on policy?
Mr Mitchell
I can certainly say to the hon. Lady that we will do everything we can. As she set out in her speech, this is a very high priority for the Government, and we will do everything we can to make sure that those efforts are adequately resourced.
The Foreign Office and other donors have to adapt our approaches to ensure that the work can be financed sustainably. That means placing accountable country leadership and investment at the heart of our development agenda. For example, the UK has provided more than £200 million to the UNFPA supplies partnership since 2019 to improve the availability, quality and supply of life-saving reproductive health products. That covers family planning, safe abortion, about which the hon. Lady spoke extremely eloquently, and maternal health medicines. Over the last two years, the UNFPA supplies partnership has successfully secured domestic financing commitments from 43 low and middle-income countries regarding their own reproductive health supplies, totalling $26.4 million, and many committed for the first time.
The final element of our approach is ensuring that our efforts on sexual and reproductive health are fully integrated into our broader work on strengthening health systems. That was set out in our G7 Health Ministers communiqué in May. We and the other member states have committed to universal access to comprehensive health services—which include maternal, sexual and reproductive health services—at every stage of life. In making that pledge, we recognise that those services are a vital part of achieving the UN sustainable development goals.
To conclude, we are acutely aware of the challenges that we face in advancing this work, many of which were set out so eloquently by the hon. Lady.
Mr Mitchell
Yes. I am perorating rather than finishing, but of course I will give way.
Sarah Champion
I know the Minister well. If he cannot comment now, can he do some research when the RCOG report on benign gynaecological conditions comes out? I was genuinely shocked to discover that those conditions were killing more women than the other major diseases combined, and that we are not focused on that. I would be extremely grateful if the Minister made a commitment to look into that.
Mr Mitchell
I will certainly look into it. I was extremely struck by what the hon. Lady said about the scale of that issue, and by the comparison that she set out so clearly.
Despite the challenges, the UK continues to prioritise work on sexual and reproductive health and gender equality across the full span of our development and diplomatic work. That includes targeted support to reduce maternal mortality, determined efforts to reduce the roll-back of SRHR and women and girls’ rights, and work to secure sustainable financing. We will continue to advocate for the world’s most marginalised and underserved people so that we secure rights and choices for all.
When it comes to making progress on international development, Britain’s aims cannot be understood unless they are seen through the eyes of girls and women, who suffer the extremes of poverty first and hardest. In putting girls and women at the forefront of everything that we do, a particular aim of the Government’s is to get as many girls into school as we possibly can. As I told the House this morning, in the last five years for which figures are available, we were able to procure the education of more than 8 million girls.
We are also focusing on family planning; ensuring that women have the ability to decide for themselves whether and when they have children; and bearing down on all sexual violence against women, but particularly in the hideousness of conflict. Those three aspects of our policy drive us forward in what we believe is the critical battle of our times: the need to do something about the appalling discrepancies of opportunity and wealth that disfigure our world today.
Question put and agreed to.
Construction Workers: Pension Age
(10 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
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the pension retirement age for construction workers.
It is pleasure to take part today, Mr Davies, and to see Members in attendance. I will open with a question: why does it always have to be the working class who suffer? The Work and Pensions Secretary says that Ministers will soon have to “grasp the nettle” to raise the state pension age to 68. It is working people who will bear the brunt of that, none more so than construction workers.
Last year, around 2.2 million people were working in construction across the UK, with 670,000—31%—aged between 50 and 64. In Scotland, around 160,000 people were working in construction, with 54,000 of that group aged between 50 and 64. It is estimated that around 100,000 people aged 65 and above are working in construction across the UK, with 4,000 of that age group working in Scotland.
Undoubtedly, those workers bring a huge wealth of experience and skills that they can pass on to future generations, but they face a pension black hole in many situations. Research by Unite has found that the majority of construction workers were not saving towards retirement. Estimates show that only 797,000 employees in the construction sector are paying into a pension.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing today’s debate. The Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association has stated that there should be a single state pension age for all, but that flexibility should be introduced to allow people to receive their pensions earlier. Does he agree that the Government should support construction workers perhaps receiving their pension earlier, considering the physical toll that their occupation can have?
Owen Thompson
I agree entirely, and I will develop that point. Those 797,000 employees paying into a pension make up only 36% of the construction workforce. We are creating a destitute generation. Unite said:
“These figures are deeply troubling…Even if workers are saving towards a pension, there is no guarantee that they are saving sufficient amounts to prevent poverty in retirement. The way that construction is organised, with short-term engagements, rampant bogus self-employment and nefarious schemes such as umbrella companies, it is incredibly difficult for construction workers to have confidence in their continued employment so as to allow them to consistently pay into a pension scheme. The government needs to take urgent action to begin plugging this black hole in construction pension saving, the consequences of not doing so do not bare thinking about.”
The issue is clear. There is already a mental health crisis in the construction industry, and the pension black hole adds to the worries of workers. It is very much a male-dominated industry, and we know that men are three times more likely to die by suicide than the national average. Construction work has a variety of pressures, from tight contracts to long hours, time away from loved ones and managing budgets, not to mention the added stresses of the pandemic and now the rising costs of supplies.
The sector still has a macho culture that prevents many workers from seeking the help and support they might need, putting further stress on their mental health and wellbeing.
Margaret Ferrier
On the point about health, construction workers face certain occupational hazards such as exposure to asbestos, which can cause cancer and detrimentally affect their health later in life. Does the hon. Member agree that, due to the health risks to which construction workers are exposed, the Government should evaluate reducing their pension retirement age?
Owen Thompson
The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. The key part of this is evaluation. Let us make sure that we have all the evidence to back up the calls that we are making. The issue has been looked at, so let us take on board the assessments and do something with them. We know that an early retirement age is possible in other industries. I thank and pay tribute to the Library for the excellent briefing that it has prepared to support this debate, which lists a number of other occupations in which early retirement is possible. Footballers are one example; I think their retirement age is something like 35.
Scotland has the lowest life expectancy of all the countries in the UK. In Midlothian, life expectancy at birth was 81 for women and 77 for men in the years 2019 to 2021. Meanwhile, men in Knightsbridge, London, have an average life expectancy of 94, the highest in the country—nearly 15 years longer than the average male.
Unlike other countries, the UK has no provision for early access to the state pension under any circumstances. That is a critical point. We must consider why we need to be so prescriptive when it comes to this particular topic. Proposals for early access to the state pension have been discussed previously, in the 2016-to-2017 and 2021-to-2023 state pension age reviews. The situation is unfortunate. The issue will not go away. The pressures around it will become significantly more challenging and eventually we will have to grasp the thistle and actually take action on it, so why not now?
Canada and the USA have general provision for early access to pensions in exchange for lower pension amounts, and that could be considered as part of this. The normal minimum pension age, which is the earliest age from which someone can normally draw their workplace personal pension, has gone from 50 to 57 by April 2028. Some people in certain professions with a lower retirement age—such as sportspeople, as I mentioned—who had a right before April 2006 to draw their pension before age 50, may have a protected pension age, further widening the gap. However, construction workers do not have that provision.
Last month, I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), about the potential merits of lowering the state pension age for construction workers. She argued against reforming the current system, saying:
“The Government believes that the principle of having a State Pension age that is the same for everybody is fundamental in the UK. It has the merit of simplicity and clarity including giving a clear signal to those planning for retirement.”
So we are sacrificing a generation of workers for the sake of “simplicity”.
A recent survey by the Chartered Institute of Building again showed the scale of the problem. Many employees cannot afford to retire because of inadequate pension plans and because they have no alternative financial investments to support themselves. The organisation called for construction employees to be encouraged to consider retirement plans and to set aside a sufficient amount to support themselves for possibly the next 20 to 30 years. However, in the face of a cost of living crisis, that has become even more challenging than it was. The CIOB said that clear information needed to be provided, with a focused campaign to help construction workers, and I support that call. However, I would go one step further and say that we need a full review into the issue of pensions and the construction industry.
In March, Baroness Neville-Rolfe said that builders, electricians, plumbers and manual labourers should be allowed to retire on a state pension earlier than office workers who had stayed on in further education. Her report said that the UK Government should look at changing the rules to allow manual workers to access their pension pot early. She recommended that those
“who have performed physically demanding roles over many years”
should be allowed to access their pension early, because they had a higher likelihood of developing health problems than other people, yet there has been nothing—no change and no impetus to help hard-working people. A full review would be the first step on the road to righting this wrong and the first step towards stopping an entire generation being flung on the financial scrapheap. After a lifetime of hard manual work, the ultimate ignominy for construction workers is to face poverty in their twilight years.
Construction workers literally built this country. We talk of levelling up and growing the economy, and, dare I say it, we have had a Government who talked about building hospitals—I do not know how many hospitals they eventually got to. None of that happens without construction workers. We need new homes, and that does not happen without construction workers. They deserve so much better, and this could be the starting point to achieving that.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) mentioned, 2.2 million people work in construction, without whom there would be no offices, factories, roads, schools or homes. Although we place great value on having a roof our heads, we undervalue the people who build them.
Margaret Ferrier
Following on from that, a concerning skills gap is growing in the UK construction sector, which means that existing employees have to work longer hours on site to compensate for that gap. Does the hon. Member agree that if the skills shortage is not addressed, many construction workers will experience fatigue and might be burdened with poor health and retirement outcomes?
Ronnie Cowan
I could not agree more. When I left school in the late 1970s, it was no longer fashionable to take on trades. Everybody had to go to college, no matter what the course was, and we lost the skillsets in my local shipyards and in construction for plumbers, joiners, platers, fitters and all those skills. If we look at the average age now—they are getting into their 50s—there has been a gap of sometimes 20 or 30 years before we have taken on new apprentices. We are taking on new apprentices now, but the experience that we lose when these older guys leave is immeasurable. So they are staying on later and later and working longer into what should be their retirement life, sometimes in very physical jobs in very difficult circumstances.
As we approach a general election, a lot of MPs will be asking themselves, “Should I stand again?” For many who, like me, are over 60, age will be a factor in making the decision. Nights like last night, when we were here until 8.30 in the evening walking round and round—I think it was 20 times—would make anyone reconsider their working life.
As for the physical aspect of construction work, I spent the weekend gardening. When I say gardening, I do not mean bedding plants and potting sheds; I mean using industrial petrol-driven machinery. Trees, bushes and grass all got the treatment. My green credentials might have taken a battering, but I can assure Members that the replanting of more appropriate species will take place in the near future. My point is that at 63, hard labour for me was a few hours interrupted by cups of tea, chocolate biscuits, a natter with the neighbours and much stroking of my beard as I perused the damage that, obviously, I was doing. My effort was minuscule compared with the contribution made day in, day out, year in, year out by construction workers and the effect that that has on their joints, muscles and tendons. Mine was minor compared with the toll that years of construction work results in.
When I was 17, I worked on building sites and spent the day carrying bricks, mixing cement and moving raw materials around for the skilled workforce to utilise. I cannot imagine what state my body would be in if I had done that job all my working life. And yet we ask those workers to work in freezing conditions during the winter and increasingly hot conditions in the summer. The job we do must have a bearing on the age we retire at.
On the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian by the UK Government, the UK Government believe that
“the principle of having a State Pension age that is the same for everybody is fundamental in the UK”
but I disagree. They say that it
“has the merit of simplicity and clarity including giving a clear signal to those planning for retirement”,
but what is that clear signal? Is it “Frankly, we don’t care”? Is it “Just be grateful you are not dead already”? Or is it “We don’t appreciate your hard work over all these years”? I suggest it is a combination of all three.
Finally, we have acknowledged that people in many professions can and do retire earlier already—that happens. It is time we extended that to the unsung heroes that are our construction workers.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) on securing today’s debate, and I thank him for his work in this important policy area. I also thank colleagues from across the House who have taken part in the debate. I will address a number of issues, including the wellbeing of construction workers, how they can take their pension early in some cases, the importance of support for people looking for work and, indeed, the state pension age.
I turn first to the wellbeing of construction workers and those in similar industries. I think it is fair to say—I hope we all agree—that construction is clearly a very important industry. Despite improvements to health and safety, there are still significant risks to workers in the industry, and I believe that it is important for the Government to take action to protect workers and to reduce risks at work. As has been noted by the shadow Secretary of State for the future of work, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), we need a new deal for working people, and an incoming Labour Government will create the right and safe conditions for proper competition and growth.
I am pleased to support the need for safety, both as a shadow Minister and as a constituency MP. There is much more to do to improve safety at work, and further action should be taken in this important area. For example, I believe that there needs to be a review of health and safety at work to make sure that outdated legislation is fit for purpose—something that I think other Members may have implied but that was not commented on. I also believe that those who are not able to work should receive support. There needs to be welfare reform to help support more people to make the breakthrough into sustained employment and, indeed, to progress in work. Without action, we risk condemning a generation to a life on the margins.
Today, unemployment is up, with 1.3 million men and women unemployed. The number of people out of work due to sickness has risen to a record high of 2.5 million, and 760,000 young people are not in education, employment or training—all at a time when we have millions of vacancies in the labour market. That is why reform is so urgent. After 13 years of Conservative Governments, too many people are trapped on welfare, sadly going nowhere. It is an unforgivable waste of their potential. We need reform, and we need new thinking.
I want to talk about the state pension and to briefly recap on some of the changes to state pension age, because there has obviously been a lengthy discussion of aspects of the policy. From the 1940s until April 2010, the state pension age was 60 for women and 65 for men. Legislation to increase the state pension age was introduced in stages, with the Pensions Act 1995 including provisions to increase the state pension age for women aged between 60 and 65 in a series of stages between April 2010 and 2020, to bring it into line with the state pension age for men. The Pensions Act 2007 made provision to increase the SPA from 65 to 68 in stages between 2024 and 2046, and the Pensions Act 2011 brought forward the completion of the increase in the women’s SPA to 65 to November 2018.
As a result of those Acts, the current timetable is for the SPA to rise to 67 between 2026 and 2028, and to 68 between 2044 and 2046. The announcement that the Government are not going ahead with accelerating the state pension age rise is welcome. It is the right decision, but it is the clearest admission yet that a rising tide of poverty is dragging down life expectancy for so many. Life expectancy appears to be stalling and even going backwards in some of our poorest communities, as was hinted at by hon. Members who spoke earlier. I am afraid that that is a damning indictment of 13 years of failure under the current Government and, indeed, the coalition Government. I hope the Minister will acknowledge that later.
The hon. Member for Midlothian has called for the state pension to be available early for some construction workers, and I appreciate that he spoke about that today. As I said, I congratulate him on securing the debate. However, I believe that the approach he suggests could lead to a series of unintended problems for the Department for Work and Pensions in administering the state pension. It is important to remember that other help is available, and I want to see the help and support improved. I would also like to make a broader point to him: it is very important that our pension system offers security and predictability for people of working age who are saving for a pension. I am grateful to him for securing today’s debate, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the matters raised.
The Minister for Employment (Guy Opperman)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) on securing the debate and passionately putting forward his case. I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) on the debris and disaster that he wreaked upon his garden last weekend—mighty will be the photographs, I am sure. It was also good to hear the points set out by my friend the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier).
It was good to hear from the shadow Pensions Minister, the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda), who is also a friend of mine. I am no longer the Pensions Minister, because I was shuffled off that mortal coil by the previous Prime Minister, but I am standing in as a deputy today. I apologise on behalf of the actual Pensions Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), who has a long-standing engagement outside the House of Commons that has been pre-booked for a considerable time, so I notify the hon. Member for Midlothian that she means no discourtesy to him or the House by her absence. I will endeavour to be an able replacement for the Pensions Minister, but she is most definitely carrying forward the torch of the Department’s policy on an ongoing basis.
This has been a debate about all matters construction, and it is right and proper that a full declaration of previous ability be made. I was a painter and decorator for the best part of nine months. I helped to build various buildings on labouring sites, just like the hon. Member for Midlothian, and I was briefly a roofer in my student days. “Opperman” means “upper man”—the man thrown up on the roof in days gone by to catch the tiles as they were thrown up there—so I come to this debate with great support for the construction industry. The hon. Gentleman was entirely right to laud, as others did, construction workers’ contribution to society, whether that is in Scotland, in the United Kingdom or throughout the world. It is to our credit that we have a thriving industry.
The hon. Gentleman raises a legitimate, fair and fundamental point: whether someone is a construction worker or any other person doing a heavy, physical, manual job, how does the state provide for them on an ongoing basis as they age and reach the designated retirement age? With due respect, we have to bear in mind that at all stages there is the issue of intergenerational fairness, because all pensions—this point is not always grasped—are paid by the taxpayer of today, who has to make a contribution to satisfy the number of pensioners, which is going up massively.
Bluntly, we pay more in pensions than ever before in this country. The new state pension went up to £203.85, which is an increase of £18.70, in April 2023. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the benefit system was enhanced by over 10% in the Budget. We have never paid more in state pensions than we currently do.
Margaret Ferrier
Many construction workers are self-employed and will therefore have no private pension, or a limited one. Does the Minister agree that we should recognise that facet of the construction sector and look at how pension education can be improved in the sector?
Guy Opperman
As the person who pioneered Pension Awareness Day, which I can strongly recommend, and many other pension policies during my five years as the Pensions Minister, I strongly endorse the hon. Lady’s point and encourage the sector unions to get involved in that. To be blunt, some were better than others. I had the honour and privilege of speaking twice at the Trades Union Congress annual conference; I think the first time was a legitimate invitation, but the second time I believe the invitation was probably just repeated by mistake. Making the case to union and sector colleagues for what we are trying to do is very important. I take the point.
The hon. Lady brings me nicely to the issue of which pensions are available. There are three types. There is the state pension, which obviously depends on the extent to which the individual pays national insurance contributions. Pretty much every employee in the construction sector will be paying national insurance contributions as part of their employment, and there is no question but that the self-employed should also be a part of that. The state pension should kick in in the usual way, so that will arrive at a particular time.
On top of that are the reforms brought in originally by the Labour Government, through the Turner commission, in 2003 and subsequently legislated for by the coalition in 2011-12 and expanded on by the coalition. I am referring to automatic enrolment. I accept that not everybody in the construction sector is in an employed job, but I will come to that point in a second. Automatic enrolment is an undoubted cross-party UK success story— I knew it was going well when the Pensions Minister from China requested a meeting to discuss how we were trying to get a workforce motivated and saving in a way that they could not necessarily do previously.
It was clear that the pensions system in the 1980s, the ’90s and the noughties was declining in terms of the private contributions that we wished to see. The defined benefit system was declining and the defined contribution system needed to grow. Putting it to the individual was difficult—I will come in a second to the point that the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West made about the self-employed—but automatic enrolment has transformed private pension saving in this country. Saving 8% on an ongoing basis, as we are now doing, with a contribution from the employer within that and some support from the taxman, is massively helpful.
Let me give the stats. As of May 2023, we were almost at 11 million employees, having started in 2012. In 2012, the number of people who had a private pension was 42%; that has now gone up to 86%. Young people were at below 30%; they are now at 85%. Women were at just about 40%; they are now at 87%. The stat that I have for construction workers, which I am assured was provided by my predecessor but one, is that construction workers with private pensions have gone from 30% to 79%. Obviously, that is those who are in an employed situation, but it clearly shows a dramatic improvement on the situation that would have applied if we had been having this conversation 11 years ago, prior to the introduction of automatic enrolment.
That does not mean that one should not address the points that have fairly been raised about the self-employed. Having done 20 years as a self-employed individual, let me make the point that if one is self-employed, one has the perfect right to sign up to one’s own pension. One has the perfect right to join NEST, the National Employment Savings Trust, which is the easiest automatic enrolment provider. There are many different sectors that are relevant. I started out as a—much thinner—jockey and then became a lawyer. Construction workers can set up their own self-employed pension, which is of course tax-deductible as to earnings on an ongoing basis, and many in the construction industry take advantage of that.
However, I accept that there is a cohort that is not saving as it would like to, notwithstanding the three potential ways in which that happens. Along with a state pension that has increased, one has to be aware of the 2016 reforms, which were introduced by a previous Government and set out the new state pension, which was introduced to be simpler and better for a whole cohort of society. To be fair to the hon. Member for Midlothian, he set out the Pensions Minister’s approach previously. This is in a context where there is the universality of the state pension, but more importantly, we have had this for 75 years, and the modern state pension has very clear rules—the hon. Gentleman set them out—about the time at which one can get entitlement. Those rules help to make it both affordable, because it is paid for by the working taxpayer, and sustainable, so that it can continue to be the foundation of income in retirement for future generations.
There is some evidence from some countries—I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point—that one can have an earlier acceptance of part of one’s pension in some cases, but there is a lesser sum. There is genuinely an issue with being careful what you wish for, though. The reason why the Cridland review and the Neville-Rolfe review are sceptical about this, as the hon. Gentleman set out, is that the state pension is there to provide a basic form of support in our old age, such that the state can then say, “We assess that this contribution of taxpayer funding—of GDP—is the amount that we will set aside to try to support those in difficulties by reason of their age, such that they are now pensioners.”
On top of that, there is £30 billion-worth of housing support, there is pension credit support worth many thousands of pounds, and there are a huge number of other additional benefits, such as the winter fuel payment, which is going up by £300. The hon. Gentleman alluded to the fact that things like the cost of living are more complicated; he will be aware that we have spent £94 billion over the past couple of years to support the most vulnerable, including those on benefits, those in receipt of the state pension and particularly those in receipt of pension credit. That support is ongoing. The rises in winter fuel payments are a good example, with the extra £300 coming in plus the ongoing energy support grant.
It is clear that special arrangements for certain groups would rapidly lead to calls for similar arrangements for other groups. How can I put it delicately? I was not a very good jockey—I broke 26 bones in my body in my limited and short career, and my life expectancy and longevity as a jockey were highly limited—but I was able to transfer those skills, some would say interestingly, into being a lawyer and a Member of Parliament. But there are plenty of other professions that would then come forward, and that is a very significant issue for the state. It is worth having a proper conversation about this, because ultimately the state has to decide how much of a tax contribution should be taken from the working population to address these problems. There are inherent problems that would undermine a universal state pension age and its clarity.
Having worked in the Department for Work and Pensions for the past eight years, for my sins, I can strongly assure the hon. Member for Midlothian that the administration of the state pension is a marvel, but it is also incredibly complex. The moment that there were an introduction of a differential assessment, it would create a logistical conundrum, to say the least, and would require administration on an epic level. Getting such a thing correct—I suspect that as the hon. Gentleman proposes, all these things would have to be assessed, including with a prior medical assessment—is extraordinarily difficult. With respect, that approach was comprehensively rejected by the Cridland report. I accept that one paragraph of the Neville-Rolfe report seems to suggest that certain people do so; I think it talks about people who are 65 with 45 years of national insurance contributions. It is something that can be legislated for, because this Government or any future Government will have to legislate for the state pension situation in the next two years. There is no doubt that we will have to return to the issue and produce legislation setting out on how these things can be done, and Parliament can make decisions on that.
I will make a couple of brief points that I think are relevant to how we approach people who have done one job but are struggling to continue in it. First, they would obviously rather be working than on welfare, but we have never paid more welfare support: this country has never given more to the disabled and to those on welfare support. There is a copious amount of support out there. On reskilling, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the Augar review, the lifelong learning pledge and the efforts that are being made to create further education not just for people aged 18 to 24, but for older workers, in a whole host of ways.
I will slightly push back on the hon. Member for Inverclyde, who was slightly disparaging on the skills situation. I believe that there have been about 5,454,000 apprenticeships since 2010. That is a pretty impressive record on apprenticeships, which have massively increased.
Guy Opperman
I will happily give way, but surely the hon. Gentleman must accept that that is a massive figure.
Ronnie Cowan
But the point I was making was that we picked that up after two or three decades of neglect. What we have been missing in between is the experience that people have gathered during that time.
Guy Opperman
Normally I am very happy to have a go at the 13 years of Labour Governments, but I say respectfully that there was a trend by successive Governments throughout the years that university was the way ahead. That was particularly the case with the Blairite ambition that 50% of all students should be going to university. There is clearly a role for university, but I would like to think that the coalition Government and this Conservative Government have majored on apprenticeships. I urge the hon. Gentleman to read the debate I answered last night—I have been busy—because it was specifically about skills and further employment, with which we are trying to support people.
One way we are supporting people is through the midlife MOT, which is very relevant to the hon. Member for Midlothian. The midlife MOT is mentioned in the Cridland report—I think it is on page 72. It is set out in quite a lot of detail; it is a project that I have pioneered in copious detail for the last six and a half years. I cannot stress enough the difference it is making. The midlife MOT now exists in jobcentres for those who are unemployed; it exists on a private sector basis with the three trials that we have going; and pretty much every large pension provider is now running it. It looks at wealth, work and wellbeing. It is massively appropriate to reskilling those who are 45 to 55 and are struggling to work out the way ahead.
The evidence so far is that the midlife MOT is a very successful innovation. The private sector is very much in support of it. If the hon. Member for Midlothian and his union have not read the Aviva review, I urge them to do so. Put bluntly, the midlife MOT is part of the suite of options that the Government have, along with the business champion for older workers, who I have met repeatedly and is doing good work, and the support for returnerships, which the Chancellor set out in copious detail in the Budget. There are also opportunities for retraining, whether those are in sector-based work academies or in the skills bootcamps run through jobcentres up and down the country, whereby if an individual becomes unemployed they can be retrained in alternative employment so that they can return to the workforce.
In respect of those with health conditions and the disabled, the hon. Member for Midlothian will be aware of the health and disability review that has been published by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work. It looks at exactly how we get people with long-term health conditions and those who are disabled back into work.
Secondly, there is the unquestioned ability that has been shown by so many people. There are now 4.9 million people who are disabled but still working, as of the most recent figures from quarter 3 of 2022. That is an increase of 2 million people. It is a testament to this country that we are now much more open to taking people with health conditions or disabilities into work. Again, that is something that I think will make a difference.
A couple of other points have been made. I have talked about the two state pension age reviews. I would also make the point that for those who are struggling and vulnerable, there has been £94 billion-worth of support.
In conclusion, I believe it is right to restate the point that for 75 years the state pension has had a single issue and receipt date. That will continue for the near future, but Parliament will decide those matters on an ongoing basis with whoever the Government are in future. In those circumstances, I commend this speech to the House.
Owen Thompson
I thank the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) and my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan), as well as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda), and the Minister, for taking part in the debate, but I have to say that I am disappointed in the responses from the shadow Minister and the Minister.
I think perhaps we are coming to the issue with different perspectives. The Opposition and the Government’s point of view is “This is what it would cost,” whereas mine is “Let’s put the health and wellbeing of the individual first, and then we can work out the other bits.” I am not saying that one is better than the other, but they are different ways of looking at the issue. I agree with the Minister that there is a conversation that still needs to be had. Is the approach of simply asking the price tag enough to decide whether we should or should not do something? Just because something is difficult, that does not mean that we should not do it.
I hear the Minister’s point about auto-enrolment. However, I gently suggest that a high volume of people signed up with a private pension does not automatically mean that they are going to have enough to support them in retirement. There is more still to be done. I welcome the start of the conversation, but it needs to continue. We need to change the mindset on the issue and move away from simply saying, “This is what it costs, so we can’t do it.” Let us look at it in a more rounded way and make it about the wellbeing of the individual.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the pension retirement age for construction workers.
Written Statements
Sudan: Sanctions on Entities Linked to SAF and RSF
(10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
On 12 July, in response to the ongoing conflict in Sudan, the UK announced a package of six sanctions under the Sudan (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. We are freezing the assets of three commercial entities linked to each party involved in the conflict: the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), headed by Al Burhan, and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), headed by Hemedti.
The SAF and RSF have dragged Sudan into a wholly unjustified war, which they are prosecuting with utter disregard for their people, and for which they should be accountable. UK sanctions on those entities which the SAF and RSF have used to finance their war effort are designed with a specific purpose: to press the parties to engage in sustained and meaningful progress to peace—including stepping aside from power—allow in humanitarian assistance, and end atrocities.
Both the SAF and the RSF own and control vast commercial empires which provide them with economic resources and weapons so they can keep fighting. We have imposed six asset freezes on commercial entities in total, three operating under the authority of each party.
Acting with partners including the US, which designated four of the same entities on 1 June, the sanctions will send a strong message of international condemnation to both parties to the conflict,
As there is a humanitarian exemption in our Sudan sanctions regulations, exempting funds destined for humanitarian aid from an asset freeze, we do not anticipate that the sanctions will impact humanitarian assistance in the region. We will monitor this closely.
The full list of designations is as follows:
Al-Junaid, large RSF-owned conglomerate set up by Hemedti which made him the richest man in Sudan. Provides financial backing for the militia, enabling it to continue the conflict.
GSK Advance Company Ltd—a key front company owned by RSF funding the militia and enabling it to purchase material.
Tradive General Trading co—a company associated with the RSF, supplying it with funds and matériel such as vehicles retrofitted with machine guns for the RSF to patrol the streets.
Defense Industries Systems (DIS)—the large SAF-owned conglomerate, which provides the finances for Al Burhan to continue fighting.
Sudan Master Technology—a Sudanese company involved in the sale of arms with close commercial ties to Defense Industries System, the economic and manufacturing arm of the SAF which supplies it with funds and equipment.
Zadna International Company for Investment Limited—a subsidiary of SAF-owned DIS, reported to be one of its top three “major earners”.
[HCWS931]
Early Years
(10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Claire Coutinho)
From 4 July 2022 to 16 September 2022, the Department for Education (DFE) consulted on the following proposed amendments to the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) statutory framework:
a change to the current statutory minimum staff to child ratios in England for two-year-olds from 1:4 to 1:5;
clarifying that childminders can care for more than the currently-specified maximum of three young children, when caring for siblings of children they already care for, or when caring for their own child; and
clarifying that “adequate supervision” while children are eating means that children must be within sight and hearing of an adult—rather than the current wording of “sight or hearing”.
Alongside the consultation, the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) and Frontier Economics—commissioned by DFE—conducted a study with early years providers to assess the impact of the proposed changes.
In the Government response to the consultation, published in March 2023. we announced that we would be proceeding with the proposed changes to ratios, childminder flexibilities and supervision while eating.
Today, 12 July 2023, we have laid a Statutory Instrument (SI) in both Houses to amend the Early Years Foundation Stage statutory framework (EYFS) to make the changes referenced above. These changes will come into force from 4 September 2023.
The updated version of the EYFS—which will apply from 4 September 2023—is available on www.gov.uk, alongside the current version of the EYFS—which still applies until 4 September 2023.
A full impact assessment has been prepared for these regulations. It is annexed to the explanatory memorandum, which is available alongside the SI on the OPSI website https://www.legislation.gov.uk.
In the written ministerial statement published on 7 July we also announced additional funding to uplift the rates for the existing entitlements from September 2023. We will be investing £204 million of additional funding in 2023-24 and £288 million in 2024-25. For 2023-24, this means we will effectively increase the funding rates that local authorities receive by an average of 32% for the current two-year-old entitlement, and by an average of 6.3% for three and four-year-old entitlements, compared to their current 2023-24 rates. Further detail can be found in that statement.
[HCWS932]
Strengthening Environmental Civil Sanctions
(10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
Protecting our natural environment is a Government priority. The Government are pleased to announce today that we have laid new secondary legislation to strengthen environmental civil sanctions and provide the environmental regulators with the tools they need to hold operators to account.
Currently, there is a cap of £250,000 on variable monetary penalties imposed by the environmental regulators for a wide range of offences. We are removing this cap to make the penalty unlimited, so that penalties are proportionate to the degree of environmental harm and culpability. Strong safeguards are in place, including the ability of an offender to pay, when regulators determine the size of penalties. The Environment Agency will use the independent Sentencing Council guidelines to underpin all penalties.
Strengthening regulations that ensure polluters will be held to account is part of our wider plan to reduce pollution and protect the biodiversity and ecology of our natural environment. All funding from fines and penalties handed out to water companies that pollute our rivers and seas will be invested in schemes that benefit our natural environment.
We know that people across the country want to see more progress in tackling pollution and, if operators breach regulations, our environmental regulators need the right powers to impose penalties. These new penalty changes will deter organisations from polluting and increase their incentive to comply with environmental regulations.
We are also introducing unlimited variable monetary penalties as a civil sanction for offences under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016, to ensure regulators have the right tools to drive compliance across a range of sectors and breaches.
This announcement follows our recent consultation, first announced in “Plan for Water”, on strengthening the enforcement regime where the overwhelming majority of responses from the public supported our proposals. These changes complement a suite of Government action under way to better hold water companies to account, including new powers for Ofwat that will enable it to take enforcement action against water companies that do not link dividend payments to performance for both customers and the environment. More details can be found in the attached annex.
Together, these changes will provide a proportionate deterrent and punishment for operators who breach their permits and will help regulators to better protect the environment.
The civil sanction regime for environmental offences should act as a clear deterrent to offenders across all industries, from water companies to waste operators—we will not let companies get away with illegal activity and where breaches are found we will not hesitate to hold companies to account.
Annex 1
As set out in the Government’s “Plan for Water”, we are driving action to strengthen regulation and drive improvements across the water sector, including:
More investment
The £2.2 billion of accelerated investment by water companies, to spend on new infrastructure to tackle pollution and increase our water resilience—including £1.7 billion on storm overflow improvements to cut discharges by 10,000 per year.
Creating a new water restoration fund, using money from water company fines and penalties to support local environmental projects.
Delivering long-term catchment action plans—community-led schemes which aim to improve waterways and surrounding eco-systems—to improve water bodies in England.
More than doubling the money for slurry infrastructure by increasing funding to £34 million for farmers to improve slurry storage, reducing a major source of water pollution.
Supporting farmers to store more water on their land through the £10 million Water Management Grant to fund more on-farm reservoirs and better irrigation equipment.
Stronger regulation
Consulting on banning the sale of plastic wet wipes.
Enabling key water supply infrastructure—such as reservoirs and water transfer schemes—to be built more quickly.
Bringing forward the deadline for water companies to reduce chemicals in wastewater treatment to 2027.
Consulting on extending environmental permits to cover dairy and intensive beef farms, and to improve how this is done for pig and poultry farms, in order to better manage sources of pollution.
Tougher enforcement
Enabling Ofwat to link dividends to company performance, and tightening up measures on “water bosses” bonuses.
Ofwat has also announced measures to penalise companies that fail to properly monitor storm overflows and determined that in the financial year 2023-34, the water sector must return £132 million to customers as a result of underperformance.
[HCWS929]
North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust: Independent Review
(10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
Following a request by the Department of Health and Social Care, in May 2022, NHS England commissioned an independent review into concerns raised about compliance with coronial processes at North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust. Today, NHS England published the findings from this review.
I am grateful to Dame Marianne Griffiths for chairing this review and for the work she and her team have undertaken into investigating this important issue. The review was tasked with examining patient safety and governance processes at the trust which included consideration of previous investigations and reports on this matter. I am grateful to everyone who contributed to this review—the families and the staff—whose participation will enable lessons to be learnt.
The review found that significant leadership, cultural and behaviour issues contributed to the overall failings experienced by the families. For example, appropriate documentation was not provided to HM Coroners and, when submitted as part of the coronial process, documents had been amended to downgrade a serious incident into an event needing lesser scrutiny. This review makes 18 recommendations which cover governance, leadership, culture, and commissioning. The report has been published on NHS England’s website and is available here: https://www.england.nhs.uk/north-east-yorkshire/our-work/publications/ind-investigation-reports/
In the last decade, the Government have introduced substantial measures to reduce harm to patients, including a statutory duty of candour, legal protections for whistle-blowers, medical examiners across the NHS and legislation to establish the Health Services Safety Investigations Body. It is important that the right processes are put in place by trusts to make sure safeguards are properly implemented and there is continuous learning.
NHS England has also introduced a patient safety strategy which sets out how the NHS will support staff and providers to share safety insight and empower people—patients and staff—with the skills, confidence and mechanisms to improve safety. I also welcome the National Guardian Office’s review, published in February, into speaking up in ambulance trusts to ensure that ambulance services are a safe place to work, and staff feel confident and supported when issues need to be raised. Action includes the NHS launching an independent review into broader cultural issues in ambulance trusts.
Ambulance services are receiving £200 million of additional funding this year to grow capacity and improve response times, alongside 800 new ambulances, including specialist mental health ambulances. We have also made significant investment in the ambulance workforce, with the number of NHS ambulance staff and support staff increasing by over 40% since 2010.
Alongside the review report, the trust has issued an assurance statement and I am pleased that both the trust and the integrated care board have accepted the findings and recommendations and have set out some of the work already in train to address the concerns.
I will continue to work with the trust and NHS England to address the concerns raised in Dame Marianne’s review and ensure that lessons are learnt to improve patient safety across the wider healthcare system.
A copy of the report will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS933]
National Disability Strategy
(10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Tom Pursglove)
In January 2022, the High Court declared that the National Disability Strategy was unlawful. This was because the UK Disability Survey, which was used to inform it, was held to be a voluntary consultation that failed to comply with the legal requirements— “Gunning Principles”—on public consultations. The Government were granted permission to appeal this judgment and the appeal hearing was held on Wednesday 28 June 2023. The Court of Appeal handed down its judgment at 11 am yesterday, 11 July 2023.
I am pleased to inform the House that the Court of Appeal found in favour of the Government. This means that both the UK Disability Survey and the National Disability Strategy have now been found to be lawful by the Court of Appeal, and we are able to continue with the important work of implementing this long-term strategy to transform disabled people’s everyday lives for the better.
We need to take stock of what this decision means for individual National Disability Strategy commitments and evaluate how best to move forward. I will provide a further update in September to set out our next steps in more detail.
The Government will also continue to move forward with our planned consultation on the Disability Action Plan over the summer. The Disability Action Plan and the National Disability Strategy were always intended to be complementary, with the former focusing on concrete, short-term actions deliverable in 2023-24 to improve disabled people’s lives, and the latter setting out our longer-term vision, and I am delighted that we are now able to make progress on both of them.
I have consistently heard from disabled people themselves, and from disability stakeholders, that they want to see action on the important commitments set out in the National Disability Strategy. I am pleased that we are now able to move forward again with this ambitious agenda, and I look forward to working with colleagues across the House to drive joined-up, effective action across Government, which will truly transform disabled people’s lives for the better.
[HCWS930]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, I should advise the Grand Committee that if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Pensions Dashboards (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the Grand Committee do consider the Pensions Dashboards (Amendment) Regulations 2023.
Relevant document: 44th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to introduce this statutory instrument, which, subject to approval, will make amendments to the Pensions Dashboards Regulations 2022. The instrument removes the staging profile from the 2022 regulations and introduces a single connection deadline of 31 October 2026 for relevant occupational pension schemes to connect to pensions dashboards.
The successful introduction of automatic enrolment more than a decade ago, combined with a trend towards people working multiple jobs in their lifetime, has seen a substantial increase in smaller pension pots. Without intervention, the number of lost and forgotten pots will remain exactly that—lost and forgotten—and financial planning for retirement will become still more complex. Pensions dashboards will help hard-working savers to locate pension pots that they have accumulated over time, reconnecting them with lost and forgotten pension pots and supporting better planning for retirement. People will be able to view their various pensions, including their state pension, securely and all in one place online.
There can be no doubt that pensions dashboards have the potential to become a game-changer that will revolutionise the pensions landscape. The UK is not alone in realising the enormous potential that pensions dashboards bring. Countries such as Denmark, Israel and Australia have all established pensions dashboards as a feature of their financial landscape. However, the UK’s pensions industry is arguably unique by virtue of its scale and complexity. We should not underestimate the ambition and challenge of securely connecting thousands of schemes and of presenting data in a coherent manner, from state and private pensions, for the benefit of savers. We anticipate that, once all schemes in scope of the regulations are connected, the pension records of over 71 million memberships from relevant occupational pension schemes and providers of FCA-regulated entities will be accessible to people at the touch of a button, at a time of their choosing.
The reason for bringing forward these amendment regulations is that, at the end of last year, the Pensions Dashboards Programme, which is responsible for delivering the digital architecture that underpins pensions dashboards, informed my department that more time was required to complete the build of the digital architecture. The PDP faced several key issues: the technical solution has not been sufficiently tested and there is still work to do to finalise the necessary supporting documentation and to get the necessary systems in place to support the pensions industry with the connection process. It was concluded that more time was needed to successfully deliver dashboards and that a reset of the programme was required.
The Minister for Pensions subsequently issued a Written Statement in March 2023, announcing the delay and setting out that the Pensions Dashboards Programme would be reset to get it back on to a path for successful delivery. The decision to pause, review and reset the programme will provide it with the time to ensure complete delivery of the ecosystem and supporting documentation before industry begins to connect. So far, the reset has assessed the digital architecture and I am pleased to report that no fundamental issues have been identified. This has provided reassurance to the Government to move forward with amending the regulations.
The staging profile in Schedule 2 to the 2022 regulations set out the order in which different types of schemes, categorised by size and type, would connect to pensions dashboards. However, the 2022 regulations did not provide the flexibility necessary to deliver a programme of this magnitude—a digital undertaking that will enable users to search over 3,000 schemes to find their pensions.
This instrument curtails the period of uncertainty for the pensions industry. The staging profile in the 2022 regulations required the first schemes to connect at the end of August 2023. By laying these amendment regulations, we are seeking to avoid any perception that schemes would be in breach through no fault of their own. As mentioned, all schemes in scope will now be required to connect to dashboards by 31 October 2026 at the latest. The regulations will provide more flexibility to deliver pensions dashboards while retaining the broad framework of a phased approach to help to manage the flow of connections and maximise coverage as early as possible.
The Government will work with partners and the pensions industry on a connection timetable to be published in guidance. We expect that the connection timetable in guidance will prioritise large schemes with the greatest number of members. This will maximise the potential for savers to realise the benefits of dashboards as early as possible. The dashboards available point—the point at which dashboards will be available for widespread public use—could therefore happen before the October 2026 connection deadline in the regulations. Although the connection timetable set out in guidance will not be mandatory, there is a requirement for scheme trustees or managers to have regard to this guidance. Not doing so would be a breach of the regulations. The Financial Conduct Authority will ask its board to make corresponding deadline changes in the dashboard rules for FCA-regulated pension providers shortly after Parliament approves these amending regulations.
I will now explain what has not changed. Although the instrument amends the requirements on trustees or managers by removing Schedule 2, there are no other material changes to the regulations. All other requirements have been retained, including the requirements to be satisfied for qualifying pensions dashboard services, connection duties and requirements on “find” and “view”. Crucially, the requirement for the Secretary of State to provide six months’ notice ahead of the dashboards available point remains unchanged. The Government will continue to work with the industry on the matters that must be considered before dashboards are launched to the public.
The consumer is at the heart of all our endeavours. These relevant matters are important to ensure that pensions dashboards are launched to the public safely and securely, having been rigorously tested. Protecting the best interests of savers is the core principle behind dashboards and the Government remain firmly committed to ensuring that people’s data is accurate, simple to understand and, above all, secure. Dashboards will ensure that people always remain in control over who has access to their data, as existing legislation, including data protection duties, underpins the requirements that must be adhered to by pension providers, schemes and qualifying pensions dashboard services.
Accurate and high-quality data is essential to delivery and the success of pensions dashboards rests on the pensions industry’s ability to successfully match consumers to their information. The Government and the regulators have repeatedly advised the industry to get its data ready for dashboards. It should use the extra time to ensure that it can meet its dashboard obligations. Schemes and providers are already subject to existing statutory and other protections on data, including the accuracy principle under UK GDPR, which places a requirement on schemes to take all reasonable steps to erase or rectify inaccurate data without delay. It is crucial that dashboards give power to savers and not to scammers. Robust controls and standards will be built into the digital architecture to prevent potential scammers or fraudsters from gaining access to people’s information.
These amendment regulations will facilitate a collaborative approach to connection that delivers on our commitment to introduce pensions dashboards. Pensions dashboards have the potential to transform retirement planning for ever and these regulations are another step in the right direction. I therefore commend them to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
I am most grateful to my noble friend for the clear exposition of this statutory instrument and for the very helpful meetings that he and his officials have held with noble Lords over the past few months. I am also grateful to him for the letter that he wrote to me following the last meeting.
Looking around, I see some aficionados from our earlier debates on the pensions dashboard. I was looking at a debate from 28 January 2020, when I said:
“Over the weekend, I logged on to the Pensions Dashboard Prototype Project, which I found informative, but right at the end it said: ‘The industry and government hope to have Pensions Dashboard services ready by 2019’”.
At that time, we were debating a consultation document and the response to it. Again, I quote:
“Reading the response to the consultation document, we are told: ‘Once the supporting infrastructure and consumer protections are in place, and data standards and security are assured, most pension schemes should be ready to provide consumer’s information to them within three to four years’”.—[Official Report, 28/1/20; col. 1373.]
That was in January 2020. My noble friend knows that this project has been dogged by uncertainty and delay.
I have a specific point to raise about the identification service. Consumers will obviously have to identify themselves before they can access the dashboard. The Government’s initial proposal was to use Verify, a system sponsored by the Government with ambitious targets to have 46 government services accessible by March 2018. Sadly, that project was not a success. The NAO said that
“it is difficult to conclude that successive decisions to continue with Verify have been sufficiently justified”,
and the Government withdrew support from Verify in 2020. The pensions dashboard has had to develop its own service in the meantime.
In my noble friend’s very helpful letter, he referred to the new government service, GOV.UK One Login. He said:
“The core of the system has been launched: its sign-in element, a web-based identity verification journey, and a fast-track identity checking app”
are up and running. I have actually connected to and logged into One Login, and am now registered.
In his letter to me, my noble friend went on to say:
“As you may recall, the PDP”—
pensions dashboard programme—
“has procured an interim identity service provider, whose contract runs until January 2024”.
At what point will the pensions dashboard transfer from this interim service? Will it transfer to the government-run One Login, which seems the obvious thing to do, assuming that it is as robust? By the time the system is launched in 2026 or earlier, will the interim service have been put to one side and will we all have moved over to One Login; or will the interim service still be the one that we have to use, for the next few years? I hope to hear that it will have transferred to One Login, so that we do not have to register twice—first with the interim one and then with One Login. That is my main point.
My final point is on the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny’s Committee report on this statutory instrument, published on 22 June, which I am sure my noble friend has seen. The committee raised two points in its conclusion, to which I am sure my noble friend will reply. In paragraph 27, it quoted its 16th report:
“We encourage the Government to take this opportunity to address the complexity and costs of the dashboard … by simplifying and standardising the system wherever possible”.
The committee confirmed that that remains its position in its latest report on this instrument. Finally, it said:
“We are disappointed to, once again, find our Report supplying basic information to the House that DWP should have published in the EM”—
the Explanatory Memorandum. I am sure my noble friend will respond to those points, in addition to my main point about the verification service.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, it is obviously deeply regrettable that the pensions dashboard has been delayed—again, I should probably say. If it is not ready, a delay to the connection is obviously necessary, so there is not an awful lot to be said about the regulations themselves. As we have just heard, the Explanatory Memorandum is less than fulsome on the reasons or the implications, as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee pointed out in its rather critical report, so I want to ask a few questions. I have not been able to attend some of the briefing sessions that the Minister has organised, so I apologise if I am covering what was said at some of those, but it might be worth having it on the record anyway.
What is the reason for the delay? The Explanatory Memorandum and the Minister talked about insufficient testing,
“more work … to set up adequate support for industry … and … to finalise … supporting guidance and standards”.
However, those are not reasons; they are not what has caused the delay. Delays of this nature are typically caused by inadequate scoping at the outset—we got it wrong at the beginning—by changes to the scope along the way, or by some combination of the two. Which is it? Who is responsible? What action has been taken to make those responsible for the delays accountable? If the team needs to be strengthened, has that happened?
The other possibility is simply that the dashboard was overcomplicated from the outset, which I think was what the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee may have been alluding to. Are we sure that we are not gold-plating it? Are we reinventing the wheel here? For example, have we taken advantage of the experience of open banking? We could have piggybacked on that.
Is a third-party supplier involved? If so, who and what responsibility does it have for the delay? Are there penalty clauses in the contract? If a third-party supplier is not involved, is it sensible for us to try to do a project of this size entirely in-house?
The EM is very quiet on the cost implications. What was the forecast development cost? I am talking about not the overall costs of the dashboard over 10 years but the development cost. What is it now? How much has it cost to date? How much is still to be spent? Who will cover any increase—industry, government, taxpayer? How will that work?
When large software projects of this nature go wrong, they tend to keep going wrong. I come from a software world, so I have experience here. What comfort can the Minister provide that this really will be the final delay and that we are now properly on top of the project?
At the time of the Act that enabled the dashboard, we had a lot of debate about the creation of other, privately created dashboards, and there was a lot of agreement around the Room at the time that the Money and Pensions Service dashboard should be the first to be run. I agreed with that but, given the delays, perhaps we want to think about it again. What other dashboards is the Minister aware of being developed? Are any at a sufficient stage of development that it might be quicker or cheaper for the Money and Pensions Service to consider partnering with them?
Finally, can the Minister provide any forecast of when the dashboard will become available to the public?
Baroness Drake (Lab)
I thank the Minister for so clearly setting out the purpose of the regulations. I enjoyed the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Young, to his previous contribution in the debate on this issue, which was well made. My position is that it is not disappointing that the Government’s enthusiasm for such an early launch has been tempered; I always considered that it would be a very complex project and I am delighted that there is now a much greater focus on the complexities and ensuring what is delivered. I never really wanted it delivered two years ago because I did not think that it would be well delivered then. It needs to be well delivered, because of the scale that it covers.
These regulations replace the pension schemes staging profile, staging deadlines and connection window with a single common deadline for connection of 31 October 2026. I want to reflect on the guidance to schemes on a new connection staging timetable.
The DWP’s description of the purpose of that guidance has varied according to which document is read—there is not an absolute consistency. The documentation ranges between encouraging schemes to meet the new timetable to threats of a breach of the regulations if they do not, and “having regard to” the guidance is a concept that is a little unclear. Can the Minister clarify what exactly is the status of that guidance and when a breach—and a breach of what in regulation terms—would be triggered?
I will move on to an issue that we probably have not debated a great deal in previous discussions of the dashboard. The Explanatory Memorandum refers to the monitoring and review of this legislation, saying that the approach to be adopted is
“to put in place a multi-strand evaluation strategy, the details of which are being explored”.
This strategy will
“ensure the critical success factors can be successfully tested with learning helping to further develop dashboards over time”.
The plans include research into dashboard usage, outcomes from that usage and information provided by providers. However, I cannot see any reference to key pensions public policy outcomes in those critical success factors. I did not see them when the previous regulations came with the Explanatory Memorandum and I cannot see them now.
To take it at its most basic, if, for example, as a result of dashboard usage, greater numbers of people took out more of their pension savings in their 50s or early 60s, is that a success because they have engaged, or undesirable because more people will have a lower income when they get to state retirement age? We have to be very clear what are the public policy aspirations we are seeking from that greater usage. Clearly, it is not set out, as far as I can see, in the critical success factors and the multistranded evaluation strategy—although I recognise that that is work in progress. Will any of those critical success factors identified in the Explanatory Memorandum be benchmarked against desired public policy outcomes over the long term?
Staying with that concept, what long term do we want as the outcome—not only from dashboards but a whole range of other things, although dashboards are before us today? Yesterday we saw eight papers on pensions, including analysis, consultations and consultation responses, all published in one go. I cannot let that moment pass without asking the simple question of the Minister: was any consideration given to how those eight papers and sets of proposals would impact on the multistrand evaluation strategy for the dashboard? I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to answer that today but it is an important question that needs answering.
For me, the decision by the department and the FCA to proceed with a gross investment performance metric in the proposed VFM framework, as announced yesterday, rather than net of all costs and charges, together with the continued dithering by the FCA over the transparency of costs and charges value reporting in decumulation products, is a backward step which does not resonate with the pension savers’ interest and informed decision-making. That was a deeply disappointing element of that VFM framework to read. We know from the FCA’s own findings that a wide range of charges are applied in the decumulation market, which should be rigorously assessed in a joint FCA/DWP/VFM framework. That has just been sidestepped.
Yesterday, the Chancellor referred positively to the Australian supers, but I point out that they have a tough regulatory requirement to report investment returns net of fees. If the Government are going to promote private market investment, where charges are higher, transparency of returns net of fees is essential if the saver is not to end up paying back the excess returns to the industry. The link to the evaluation strategy and the dashboard is: what information will be provided, what influences on behaviour are we expecting and how will that produce better outcomes? I must admit that, when I read that VFM framework, I thought it disappointing and rather contradicted the idea that members using the dashboard will make more informed decisions. I did not want the moment to pass without making that point.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend for his clear exposition of the regulations. I am very supportive of them and I think they have general support around the Committee. Indeed, they are pretty essential, as my noble friend described. If we do not pass them, there is a danger that schemes currently required to load data to the dashboard by the end of August will be in breach, and there will be nothing they can do.
Replacing the statutory staging timetable with a single end date of October 2026 is understandable. It is also welcome that the reference date for the dashboard requirements of pension schemes is being moved to 2023-24 so that it can include some of the newer pension schemes, which will then have to go on to the dashboard. However, I would be grateful if my noble friend could help me with a few questions. It is fine if he would like to write to me; I do not expect him necessarily to have all the answers, although he may not be surprised by the questions.
My first question relates to the Government’s intention to publish a new timetable in the form of guidance. When will it be published? Also, my noble friend said that it will not be mandatory, although trustees must, as the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, said, have regard to the guidance and will get at least six months’ notice. What is the penalty for non-compliance with the guidance, if it is not mandatory? If it is struggling, a scheme may simply say, “We’re not going to do it because the amount of money we need to spend to get on the dashboard is not worth our while”. The customers and members of those organisations would then not benefit from the dashboard.
My second question relates to the vital issue of data accuracy, which is essential for dashboards. I hear what my noble friend said about accuracy requirements in the GDPR. Following our briefing meetings, I was grateful to him and his officials for a follow-up letter that clearly explained that the Pensions Regulator has set out in guidance expectations on data quality, record-keeping, measuring data once a year and trustees ensuring that processes and controls are in place so that data standards are of good quality. Master trusts are supposed to have processes for rectifying errors they have identified and then reconciling them. This is all in place and is most welcome, but I have to ask my noble friend: where does responsibility lie for checking the data, ensuring its accuracy and then correcting and reporting back that those data have been assessed and corrected? If that does not happen, on whom would penalties fall? To whom can members and the dashboard turn to ask, “Are you sure these data are correct?” Who is ultimately responsible for signing off on that or carrying responsibility for penalties if that does not happen?
I have another question, in the light of the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, about the number of releases we have just had from the DWP. I admire the work that has been done by the department—it has clearly been extremely busy—and a lot of it is really useful. However, how will the dashboard dovetail with the reforms proposed for small pots? The Government rightly want to help people—as is part of the intention of the dashboard—to merge pots and not leave small amounts of money in legacy schemes. What are the plans for integrating the dashboard rollout with the small pots reforms?
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this statutory instrument to the Grand Committee. I have read the November debate and I look forward to a further detailed disposition from the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, with her usual forensic care. I will therefore not go into great detail; I am glad she will be winding up.
Can the Minister give me some reassurance? Compared to many others, I am coming new to this brief. Having looked through the regulations I see that there are no longer any binding interim dates, just one big deadline in 2026. Does the Minister not see how hard it will be to get busy pension schemes—commercial pension schemes—to prioritise this over their other day-to-day work? Other noble Lords have made the point about data being ready for dashboards. How much time will these pension schemes give to this, given that there are no interim dates and just one big date in 2026?
It seems to me that the issue is deadlines, and there is a need for the Government and pension schemes to nudge people to make sure that all details are up to date on the various pots so that they can pull that through to the dashboard when it is launched.
In a debate on 8 June, the Government elaborated on the need for dashboards to change the way people plan for retirement, and the Minister said that more time was needed to deliver this complex build. Paragraph 7.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum includes explanations. I have never seen so many explanations for why something has not happened:
“The technical solution has not been sufficiently tested, more work is needed to set up adequate support for industry with their connection journey and there is still work to do to finalise the necessary supporting guidance and standards”,
and so on. It is the biggest list of excuses for delay that I have come across for some time.
Other noble Lords have mentioned guidance in passing. Does the Minister believe that guidance will be sufficient to concentrate minds on the issue? I am not sure that guidance will be sufficient in many cases.
There are some small points, but I am not sure how they are addressed. I may have missed that somewhere, so I hope the Minister can provide me with an answer. For instance, how are widows’ and widowers’ rights to the pensions of their husband, wife or partner being dealt with? I had a similar case: I have a modest council pension pot and I asked what happens when I die; does my wife receive a contribution? That was six months ago and I still have not had a reply, and it is being dealt with by one of the very large pension funds. I would like some reassurance that these dashboards are not going to make the situation even worse.
In theory, pensions mainly apply to older people, although people seem to take them much earlier nowadays. It worries me that the whole idea of the dashboard is based on a knowledge and working use of IT. It may surprise noble Lords to learn that a lot of people do not use IT; many people just use their mobile phones to make calls. The whole principle of the dashboard and the way in which people access information is based on being able to operate an IT system. I have doubts because, even if the people concerned are not old now, as they get older and less able, when they will really want to know, they will be fiddling around not knowing how to get into the dashboard. Will we end up with big companies such as Aviva taking over pension schemes? I have no problems with Aviva. It seems to have taken over an awful lot, although it does quite well, but I am worried that many of the smaller pension funds will opt out.
Page 2 of the valuable impact assessment that was produced gives three options: do nothing, an alternative to legislation, and—the preferred option—the Government legislating. After reading all this, I wondered whether the first option, to do nothing, might have been safer, but we have to move forward.
We need to be careful, but we must say when this will happen, and the guidance has to be accepted by the pension funds so that they know when to do something, rather than waiting until October 2026 and saying, “Gosh, we have to do this by tomorrow”. My first point was that we need some interim dates to focus minds on this issue otherwise, as we were here a year ago and were here before then, we will be here again with another list of excuses, as detailed on this document.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to these regulations and all noble Lords who have spoken. It is very nice to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, to the pensions dashboard crew; we look forward to having discussions with him on the later iterations of this project, which one sincerely hopes will not come to pass.
We have been very supportive of the pensions dashboard. Therefore, we agree with the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, that it is deeply regrettable that we are in this place and that the Pensions Dashboard Programme needed to be reset. I accept that my noble friend Lady Drake is right: if the digital architecture was not going to be ready to enable pension schemes to connect before the first deadline, which is the end of next month, it is clearly better to pause and get it right. After all, the dashboard service will enable access to trillions of pounds of assets and accrued benefits belonging to working people. It has to be secure as well as fit for purpose.
My noble friend Lady Drake is often a Cassandra on these matters; she sees these problems coming. My problem is not that the Government should pause and reset, if that is necessary; it is that they need to stop pretending that everything is fine, until the moment when it is suddenly not fine. That is a bit of a habit in government: “Is everything fine?” “Yes, yes, yes. Oh, no, it has all fallen apart, but will be fine again with a new deadline”. We somehow need to find a way of discussing things in politics that allows a grown-up approach to understanding when projects will be difficult. There is an overconfidence on the part of the Government such that, when everyone raises problems, Ministers are sent out with a brief that says, “No, it will all be fine; there is nothing to see here”, until it falls over.
I do not expect the Minister to solve that problem overnight, but I commend this to the Government as an opportunity to think again about how we handle big projects—and, in particular, how Parliament can have some accountability for them. An awful lot of money is at stake here—private, commercial and public. There ought to be some decent accountability over it.
Clearly, people such as my noble friend Lady Drake—indeed, many on these Benches—cautioned the Government that they were underestimating the complexity of delivering the dashboard and being overoptimistic about the speed, but we want a dashboard to work. I am with the noble Lords who are raising challenges about the reasons. We have had some helpful briefings, and some slightly less helpful official ministerial Statements, but the truth is that it is hard to know what exactly has gone wrong and why it was not picked up earlier.
The Minister told us the reason, saying
“the technical solution has not been sufficiently tested and there is still work to do to finalise the necessary supporting documentation and to get the necessary systems in place to support industry with the connection process”.
A cynic would say that, basically, that means that it was all fine apart from the technology, the paperwork and the systems. That is not an explanation of what went wrong. It is a little like when my washing machine breaks and a helpful friend will say, “What’s wrong with it?” and I reply, “It’s not working. It’s not washing clothes—I don’t know”. We need more than that. I know that the Minister is keen to have his officials talk to us, but there needs to be some process of public openness and accountability when things go wrong, so that there is the ability to hold to account and understand. However, here we are, with this reset.
As we have heard, the original timetable was hardwired into secondary legislation, hence the need for the instrument. As the Minister explained, it amends the 2022 regulations to remove the staging profile, staging deadlines and connection window and insert instead a common requirement for all schemes to connect to dashboards by 31 October 2026. The new approach is described like this in paragraph 11.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum:
“Through this instrument, the Department for Work and Pensions is retaining the policy of compulsory connection by a set date and intends to encourage a staged approach set out in guidance, rather than mandated in Regulations”.
Therefore, the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, is that there will be interim dates in the guidance, but they will be suggested interim dates. It is not yet quite clear what that will mean in practice. Trustees and managers will need to have regard to such guidance but as I understand it—the Minister can clarify it—that would not necessarily mean that they are obliged to comply with the suggested dates, or presumably they would be not suggested dates but mandated ones.
That raises some key questions. With a single compulsory connection deadline, is there not an obvious risk of a backlog of schemes still waiting to connect as we get close to 31 October 2026? What action will the DWP take if there is evidence of back-ending by schemes or of backlogs building up? That is not just our concern. Dr Yvonne Braun, a director of the Association of British Insurers, said:
“Our members have indicated they’re willing and able to continue to comply with a voluntary timetable, although it would have been our preference that these remained a regulatory requirement to prevent a last-minute rush of firms connecting to the system. We ask that government keeps this under review and considers making the staggered dates a regulatory requirement again if it should become clear that the wider industry is not taking the same approach”.
What is the Government’s response to that?
Although the timetable in the guidance will not be mandatory, we know that scheme trustees or managers must have regard to it, as not doing so would be a breach of the 2022 regulations. They will also be expected to demonstrate how they have had regard to it. However, as my noble friend Lady Drake said, the language of the Explanatory Memorandum is much more about encouragement. Paragraph 7.6 refers to MaPS and TPR communicating with
“trustees and managers of schemes in scope to encourage connection ahead of the single connection deadline, in line with the connection dates set out in guidance”.
It is not clear to me where the line lies between compulsory and voluntary when it comes to guidance. Can the Minister clarify that?
Can the Minister explain what “have regard to” means in practice? Is there an established meaning of this in law? It is a phrase that comes up, so can he help us on that? A crucial question is what would count as not having regard to the guidance. For example, suppose a scheme manager reads the guidance carefully and develops a plan to connect just in time for October 2026, and she is confident her scheme will be ready by then, does that count as having sufficient regard? Suppose lots of others do the same thing, and they all get to that point but cannot connect because there are too many of them and the system cannot manage it, are they in breach of the law? Have they failed then to have due regard to the guidance? What is their position?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Committee for its broad approval for these regulations. I start by making the point that it was helpful to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, who is highly respected in this House for her pensions expertise. She welcomed the regulations and pointed out that, back in 2019, in her view, these regulations were far from being ready—she is of course correct in saying that. I value her broad support this afternoon. However, I acknowledge that there are a huge number of questions to answer in this debate, for which I thank noble Lords.
Throughout their development, pensions dashboards have received cross-party support in both Houses. Your Lordships will no doubt share my disappointment that we have needed to amend the original timeline. It is vital that the foundation upon which the dashboards ecosystem is built is safe and secure, as I said in my opening remarks. However, I am certain that the Government have made the right decision in slowing things down for the benefit of consumers.
I thank my noble friend Lord Young. I am grateful to him for reminding us of past deadlines—and indeed of past deadlines missed. I reassure him and the Committee that we are getting back on track. I hope that, in answering a lot of the questions raised today, I provide reassurance on that.
My noble friend raised the revised Explanatory Memorandum. During scrutiny of the regulations, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee felt that the EM could have provided more detail on the impact of the amendment regulations. Officials in my department subsequently provided a written response to the committee, and the department has replaced the EM with a revised version that provides the further detail requested by the committee. The DWP recognises the value of parliamentary scrutiny and the requirement for comprehensive explanatory material. It has begun internal action to strengthen its assurance processes.
I will answer the question raised by my noble friend Lord Young on the One Login, probably towards the end of my speech. I very much take note of what he asked.
I turn now to the broader issues regarding the dashboards and the reset. This was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, but it is a general theme. For example, he asked whether we had made the reset too complex. He also asked how much the scope has changed. As I said in my opening remarks, dashboards are complex, but the design is right. It is based on security and information, and on an understanding, from user research, about the information that users expect. The scope has remained the same throughout.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, went further, in asking questions about why the delay came about. I am probably repeating myself, but it is a project of significant undertaking, requiring the development of new technology that will permit individuals to find their pensions by searching thousands of pension schemes, which collectively hold millions of pension records. It became clear that the PDP would require additional time to deliver the complex technical solution to enable the connection of pension providers and schemes. I believe that my department took swift action to address the issues as soon as we knew that they had arisen. As I said earlier, the delay is frustrating, but it is vital that the foundation on which the dashboard’s ecosystem is built is safe and secure.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, also asked about the cost to the taxpayer. The dashboard project is funded by the financial services levy and the general pensions levy. These levies pay for the Pensions Dashboard Programme and the MoneyHelper dashboard, including staffing costs. The PDP has a spending review allocation through to 2025-26, and allocations beyond this point have not yet been determined. As the regulatory impact assessment shows, there is an increase in direct costs to industry of £69 million. I hope that provides some help.
The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, raised the so-called Mansion House package. I will give an overarching response on that. Since her appointment, the Minister for Pensions has focused on reforms to the private pension system, which have centred on introducing greater fairness, adequacy and predictability for today’s auto-enrolled generation of savers. The DWP has been working closely with the Treasury on a package of measures set out by the Chancellor in his speech the day before yesterday, as the noble Baroness knows, all designed to drive better outcomes for pension savers.
These are all part of a wider government agenda to improve the opportunity for investment in alternative assets, including high-growth businesses, and to improve saver outcomes. We believe that a higher allocation to high-growth businesses as part of a balanced portfolio can increase overall returns for pension savers, leading to better outcomes in retirement. We want to ensure that our high-growth businesses of tomorrow can access the capital that they need to start up, scale up and list in the UK. I am happy to write to the noble Baroness with further information. She asked about the value for money framework, so I will write to her about that.
My noble friend Lady Altmann asked about enforcement actions for schemes and whether or not they adhere to the guidance. The timeline in guidance will not be mandatory. However, trustees and managers must have regard to the guidance on connection. Trustees and managers will be expected to demonstrate how they have had regard to the guidance, and a failure to do so will be a breach of the regulations and therefore could result in enforcement action. All trustees and managers must connect by the deadline set out in legislation. I reassure my noble friend that failing to do so could result in action by the regulator, as I suspect she probably knows.
Then the question of liability arises. If an individual makes a poor decision based on inaccurate information, what then happens? Making pensions dashboards work involves multiple parties, so the question of liability if something goes wrong needs to be considered, but on a case-by-case basis. Pension schemes, qualifying pensions dashboard services and MaPS will all be subject to complaints management by the relevant ombudsman. This means that if the party at fault does not deal with the user complaint satisfactorily, the relevant ombudsman may investigate complaints and make determinations to put things right.
My noble friend Lady Altmann asked about standardisation of data, which is an important question. The Pensions Dashboard Programme is seeking to standardise many aspects of data. The regulations set out clear requirements relating to connection and the value and other data. MaPS will publish standards relating to data. The Financial Reporting Council had updated its requirements regarding the calculation of values to improve the consistency of projections.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, asked about digital access. His specific question was about those who do not use it, which is a fair point. It is true to say that, moving forward, this is primarily a digital solution we are providing, but there are existing resources still available, including the provision of annual statements. I hope that gives him some reassurance about those who are not quite as digital as others.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked about transparency on progress. I remind her and the Committee that the PDP publishes a six-monthly report. Additionally, it holds a briefing sessions with interested Peers—which I pledge to do on a regular basis—and we are keen to give as much information as we can. I hope that, from past form, she will be reassured on that.
A number of questions were raised by not only my noble friend Lady Altmann but the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and I will attempt to whisk through them in the time available. The noble Baroness asked whether, with a single compulsory connection deadline, there is a risk of a backlog of schemes trying to connect as the deadline—31 October 2026—approaches. That is a fair question, and other Peers raised the same point. The regulations include a requirement to have regard to guidance issued on connection. We will be engaging with industry on guidance that will set out the proposed connection timetable. There have been positive signs among leading providers of their intent to adhere to the guidance, which is helpful. Similarly, the ABI published a statement indicating that its members would look to connect as per the guidance. The Pensions Regulator may take action where the trustees or scheme managers fail to have regard to the connection guidance and is assessing whether any changes need to be made to its compliance and enforcement policy.
The noble Baroness also asked what action the department would take if there was evidence of back-ending and backlogs building up. The DWP will work with the Pensions Dashboard Programme and regulators to monitor connection activity, and will use insight from industry to inform how we can best help to maximise adherence and remove potential barriers for schemes. Our expectation is that, given the widespread support for dashboards, the schemes will adhere to the connection profile in guidance. However, to provide more reassurance, we will keep this approach under review and will consider changes, including further legislation—note that—if problems emerge.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked several questions in relation to our intention to publish a revised connection timeline in guidance. She asked—as did my noble friend Lady Altmann—when the guidance on proposed connection dates will be published. We will work with industry this year on agreeing the connection timetable to be published. We intend to publish it as soon as possible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked what role the regulator would play in encouraging schemes to follow the guidance, given that trustees and managers must have regard to it. She and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, also asked about clarity on encouragement to compliance. The regulator will write to all schemes, informing them of their proposed connection date, as set out in guidance, and the action that they need to take to connect by the set date. The regulator will expect trustees to be able to demonstrate how they have had regard to the guidance. As I mentioned earlier, failure would result in enforcement action.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My noble friend has been very helpful. Is it the Government’s objective that the Government’s One Login will be the access point to the pensions dashboard?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The answer is yes, eventually, but I will need to write to my noble friend to qualify what I mean by that. That is the aim and it makes sense, but I cannot say that it will be by a particular date. I shall write to my noble friend.
I shall conclude quickly because I realise that others are waiting for the next debate. I thank all noble Lords in the Committee for the points that they have made. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Enforcement) (Amendment) Order 2023
(10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Penn
That the Grand Committee do consider the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Enforcement) (Amendment) Order 2023.
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Penn) (Con)
My Lords, the order will enable trading standards to fully exercise its investigative powers to check compliance with the Tobacco Products (Traceability and Security Features) Regulations 2019. Smoking is the single leading cause of preventable death and disease in the UK, accounting for approximately 76,000 deaths a year. The Government are committed to addressing the harms of tobacco and have announced an ambition for England to become smoke-free by 2030, supported by a package of measures to cut smoking rates.
Alongside that approach, HMRC has a role to play in charging duty on tobacco products to deter smoking, as well as raising revenue to cover the cost to the NHS. HMRC has another key role in tackling the illicit market. One of the main challenges in tackling smoking prevalence, aside from the addictive nature of nicotine, is the illegal trade in tobacco products. That increases both the affordability and health risks for smokers.
The UK’s tobacco track and trace system, introduced in 2019, helps to prevent the illegal trade in tobacco products by making it more difficult for smugglers and counterfeiters to operate. The system provides a way to verify the authenticity of tobacco products and ensures that they have been legally procured and distributed. Tobacco products are tracked from point of manufacture through to point of retail, and at all stages in between.
To supply tobacco for sale in the UK, an entity must be registered for tobacco track and trace and must obtain an economic operator ID. Over 50,000 businesses are already registered, but there are inevitably those who deliberately choose to operate within the illicit supply chain, and we need to tackle such activity.
At Budget 2020, the Government announced plans for tougher, more effective sanctions to tackle the sale of illicit tobacco. An HMRC consultation which ran from December 2020 to February 2021 proposed that the sanctions be linked to the tobacco track and trace system and available for use by both HMRC and trading standards. HMRC and trading standards already work closely together to tackle the illicit tobacco market—for example, through their joint initiative of Operation CeCe. Under that initiative, illegal tobacco products are seized from retail and residential premises, disrupting the market, and preventing fraud.
Respondents to HMRC’s consultation supported the introduction of tougher penalties for illegal products found in retail and residential premises. They also supported extending powers to trading standards to better tackle non-compliance.
Primary legislation providing the powers to make regulations to introduce the new sanctions was introduced in the Finance Act 2022. Its provisions include powers to make regulations to issue penalties of up to £10,000, seize product involved in a contravention, and exclude retailers from the tobacco track and trace system, thereby restricting their ability to buy duty-paid tobacco for retail purposes.
The consequent regulations required for these sanctions to take effect will be achieved by the making and laying of two statutory instruments. The first is the Tobacco Products (Traceability and Security Features) (Amendment) Regulations, which was laid on 12 June. It sets out the detail of the new sanctions and how they will be implemented. It confers investigation functions on trading standards specifically related to track and trace. The second SI is the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Enforcement) (Amendment) Order 2023, which we are debating. This will make a small amendment to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 to allow trading standards to exercise its existing powers under the Act in relation to the investigative function conferred under the Tobacco Products (Traceability and Security Features) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.
That function will see trading standards investigating breaches of tobacco track and trace and referring them to HMRC, which will administer the sanctions. This approach will play to both organisations’ strengths. Trading standards will have an additional tool to deal with what it finds during its compliance visits. It will then be able to refer information to HMRC, which will administer the penalties and ensure that the most appropriate sanction is applied and enforced. These sanctions will serve as a strong deterrent against businesses involved in street-level distribution of illicit tobacco, helping to protect the public and our economy. I therefore beg to move.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I confess that usually when I speak on a statutory instrument I am trying to look for why it really should have been in primary legislation, not secondary. In this case, this strikes me as a genuine SI. It is almost a moment of great excitement.
I am very happy to say that these Benches support this measure, which, as the Minister says, enable trading standards to investigate more effectively illicit tobacco sales by small operators and retail outlets and to refer evidence of contraventions to HMRC for action, with potential penalties up to £10,000. We know from past surveys that some 18% of tobacco sales have been illegal. That leads me on to a series of questions to the Minister for further clarification.
At this time of cost of living pressures, some people will be tempted to buy cheaper, illegal or illicit cigarettes. I ask the Minister: is illicit activity increasing now at this time of increasing cost of living pressures, or are we continuing to see a diminution? I would be interested to know what the impact is and whether there has been any significant change that requires aggressive action.
When will the relevant guidance for businesses be published? I do not believe that is available yet. Indeed, when will the sanctions be implemented? Perhaps the Minister could give us some sense of the timetable. There is also no statutory review clause, so how will we know how effective these new powers are? If the powers are granted but are generally not used, I think the Minister knows that potential offenders will feel doubly empowered by new rules that then turn out to have no teeth, so it seriously matters that we track this. When we are tracking, will there be any measures to let us estimate the deterrence effect of the measure? That is probably one of its most important aspects.
Behind illegal sales by small and local outlets there is sometimes just a very small-scale operation, but at times it is very much linked to organised crime on a major scale. How is that link going to be investigated as trading standards becomes more engaged in this process?
The sale of tobacco to children is obviously a serious concern to all of us. Are outlets engaged in underage sales to be a particular target? Will there be any prioritisation, as far as the Minister is aware? Will enforcement involvement include the sale of non-compliant tobacco, blunts and shisha, which have sometimes been seen as a way to manoeuvre around the rules in the recent past?
The tobacco industry has a history of offering to help, or provide intelligence to, local trading standards. I have to say that civic society groups that are attempting to decrease smoking tend to view that with deep suspicion as a conflict of interest, designed to basically push tobacco sales from the illicit side but into legal purchasing rather than discouraging purchasing as a whole, and to improve the industry’s general standing and reputation. I wonder how that is going to be handled.
Does this measure also impact on non-compliant sales of e-cigarettes and vapes? We know these products are increasingly being targeted at non-smokers and youngsters, even though we have little information at the moment on what the effects are of the long-term usage of e-cigarettes and vapes.
The Government have a target to make the country free of tobacco smoking by 2030, and we support their goal of achieving a smoke-free generation. Smoking, as the Minister has said, remains a leading cause of premature death and is related to many severe and chronic illnesses and damages lives, as well as being a drain on the NHS. However, the pace of decline in smoking that followed the 2007 ban on smoking in English pubs and clubs has dwindled. How much is this measure expected to focus on reducing overall smoking? I confess that there is always a slight suspicion when HMRC is involved that the focus will be more on increasing revenues to HMRC than on reducing the overall activity—in this case, just moving it from the illicit arena into the legal arena.
If the Minister could add a little more enlightenment, we on these Benches are happy to support the statutory instrument.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, we support this measure. I shall reiterate a couple of facts mentioned by the Minister. Smoking is the biggest cause of preventable death in the UK. It accounts for some 76,000 deaths each year, with half of all smokers dying of a smoking-related illness. It is estimated that smoking costs NHS England over £2.5 billion every year. Alongside high-level policy, such as the smoking ban introduced by the last Labour Government in the Health Act 2006, evidence suggests that high duty rates have had a positive impact by reducing the number of people who start smoking and increasing the numbers seeking to cut down and quit.
With 21% of cigarettes sold in the UK currently illicit, clearly the illegal trade in tobacco products undermines these important contributions to public health. It deprives the Exchequer of vital revenue and reduces the deterrent effect of high duty rates. We therefore support harsher penalties for those who seek to avoid paying such duties and commensurate powers for trading standards to tackle those who procure, supply and distribute illegal tobacco and profit from the illegal trade.
I would like to ask the Minister three questions. First, she mentioned that the combined application of fines, powers to seize illicit products and the new sanctions is designed to have a deterrent effect on retail outlets and street-level distributors. This point was also made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. Are there any plans to communicate these powers to potential offenders so that the deterrent effect might be enhanced? Secondly, where illicit product is sold through retail outlets, what data exists on whether the owner of a retail outlet is aware of such sales versus illicit sales carried out surreptitiously by an employee, and therefore whether enforcement measures are always correctly targeted? Finally, what communication, co-operation and co-ordination exists between HMRC and the Border Force to tackle the supply of illicit product at source?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their contribution to this short debate. I am afraid that the speed of our debate might mean that I will need to write to them regarding some of their questions. I will address the ones I can.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked whether the cost of living pressures have caused an increase in the illicit market. My understanding is that there has been a negligible increase in it. Some smokers are switching, for example, to hand-rolling tobacco from ready-made cigarettes to save money. That is the kind of behaviour shift we are seeing.
As for when we will be implementing the provisions provided for in the two statutory instruments, trading standards will start work on 20 July when the tobacco tracking and security SI commences.
Regarding the types of tobacco that will be covered, I can say that the tobacco track and trace system applies to only cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco, but this makes up approximately 97% of the tobacco market. The system and the penalties are intended to be extended to other tobacco products, such as cigars, cigarillos and shisha, but that will be from May 2024. There is a plan to extend over the remaining market.
Both the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, asked about the deterrent effect. We should see a decrease in the current tax gap for tobacco duty. We anticipate that we will see an increase in compliance activities undertaken by trading standards. The visibility of businesses selling illicit products being penalised will have the deterrent effect that both noble Lords asked about.
Tackling this issue at the smaller scale, where trading standards visits premises—the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, also talked about links to more organised crime—will continue to be a focus. Activity in that area is driven by HMRC, which is the delivery partner, rather than trading standards.
The noble Baroness asked whether outlets engaged in underage sales will be targeted under this measure. My understanding is that, in each local area, trading standards looks at the priorities for targeting enforcement activity. It has powers when it comes to underage sales. The effect of this SI is to ensure that trading standards can make use of the enforcement mechanisms under track and trace, in addition to its powers on underage sales, plain packaging and other consumer issues. The priorities for trading standards visits are set locally, rather than nationally.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked about e-cigarettes and vapes. Track and trace does not apply to them but, as she may be aware, we have a call for evidence open at the moment that focuses particularly on the use of vapes among underage consumers or children, which will look at that issue more closely.
On the question of the public health benefits of this measure versus revenue protection, they are mutually reinforcing. Illicit tobacco can have health implications, because it is not subject to the same health and safety regulations as legitimate products. It has been found to contain arsenic, mould and rat droppings, for example, so that issue is at play. The availability and affordability of tobacco products also impacts on smoking rates, which is why the duty that we have in place helps to reinforce our strategy to stop smoking. Making sure that people do not engage in the illicit market also reinforces that strategy.
I will not pretend that protecting the duty owed to the UK Government is not an important objective for HMRC; it is one that we continue to support. However, it mutually reinforces the wider ambition for England to become smoke-free by 2030. As I said, the Department of Health and Social Care announced a package of measures to cut smoking rates, acknowledging that we need to go further in this space. They include expanding access to new treatments, rolling out a national incentive scheme to help pregnant women quit, and using a new approach to health warnings.
I am conscious that I have not answered all noble Lords’ questions, but I undertake to follow up in writing. There is broad support for the SI, but I am sure that the answers to those additional points will help your Lordships to understand how it will have the impact that we all hope it will have. I therefore commend this instrument to the Committee.
Business and Planning Act 2020 (Pavement Licences) (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
That the Grand Committee do consider the Business and Planning Act 2020 (Pavement Licences) (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.
Relevant document: 44th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, the regulations that we are considering today were laid in draft before this House on Wednesday 7 June under Section 23(6) of the Business and Planning Act 2020 for approval by resolution of each House of Parliament. If approved and made, these regulations will extend the temporary pavement licence provisions for 12 months to 30 September 2024 and will come into effect the day after they are made.
These pavement licence provisions create a faster, cheaper and more streamlined consenting regime for the placement of removable furniture, including tables and chairs, on pavements outside premises such as cafés, bars, restaurants and pubs. These measures have been successful in supporting businesses, making it easier for businesses such as pubs, restaurants and cafés to facilitate al fresco dining with outside seating.
We know that the hospitality sector was one of the hardest hit by the pandemic, and the economic effects of that period persist today. It is therefore vital that we extend these provisions for 12 months to continue to support its recovery from the impact of the coronavirus pandemic and to avoid unnecessary confusion while we seek to make the streamlined process permanent through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill.
I will briefly remind the Committee of the background to these regulations. Part VIIA of the Highways Act 1980 sets out a permanent local authority licensing regime for the placement of furniture such as tables and chairs on the highway. However, the process involves a legal minimum of 28 days’ consultation. That is problematic because many local authorities take much longer to determine applications, and there is no statutory cap on the fee that local authorities may charge.
Therefore, with effect from 22 July 2020, temporary pavement licence provisions were introduced in the Business and Planning Act 2020 to support the hospitality sector in response to the coronavirus pandemic. These proposed regulations use enabling powers in the Business and Planning Act 2020 that allow the Secretary of State, where they consider it reasonable to do so, to mitigate an effect of coronavirus to extend the temporary provisions subject to parliamentary approval.
I turn to the detail of the regulations. The sole purpose of the regulations is to change the four references to the expiry date of these temporary pavement licence provisions in the legislation, amended from 30 September 2023 to 30 September 2024. The regulations do not change any other part of the temporary placement licence provisions. Subject to the regulations being approved and made, businesses will be able to apply for a licence under the process set out in the pavement licence provisions in the Business and Planning Act 2020 for the extended period until 30 September 2024. The regulations do not automatically extend licences that have already been granted under the current provisions, so businesses will need to apply for a new licence should they wish to have one in place during the extended period.
Local authorities are encouraged by the guidance to take a pragmatic approach in applying the relevant provisions, so that it is as convenient as possible for businesses to apply for a licence during the extended period. I will briefly remind noble Lords of this process.
All licence applications are subject to a seven-day public consultation period, starting the day after that on which the application is made, and then a further seven-day determination period, during which the local authority is expected to either grant a licence or reject the application. If the local authority does not determine the application before the end of the determination period, the licence will automatically be deemed to have been granted in the form in which the application was made, and the business can place the proposed removable furniture within the area set out in the application for the purposes proposed.
Licence application fees will be set locally but capped at a maximum of £100. All licences will be subject to a national non-obstruction condition and smoke-free seating condition, as well as any local conditions set by local authorities.
The granting of a pavement licence covers only the placing of removable furniture on the highway. A pavement licence does not negate the need to obtain approvals under other regulatory frameworks, such as alcohol licensing. Once a licence is granted or deemed granted, the applicant will also benefit from deemed planning permission to use the highway land for anything done pursuant to the licence while the licence is valid, such as using furniture to sell or serve food or drink supplied from or in connection with the relevant use of the premises.
The regulations will enable cafés and restaurants to continue to obtain quickly and cheaply a licence to place furniture on the highway outside their premises. If these regulations are not introduced, there is a real risk of undermining the steps that hospitality businesses have taken to recover from the economic impacts they have suffered as a result of the pandemic.
We are seeking to make the streamlined approval process permanent through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. Failure to extend this measure would result in a gap in service and a return to the process under the Highways Act 1980, which would be confusing and costly for businesses and local authorities alike.
All of us in government have seen the positive impact of al fresco dining on the vibrancy of many of our high streets. I express my gratitude to local authorities for the huge effort they have made in this matter and for their hard work to enable businesses to thrive while building vibrant high streets, leading to the success of these measures. The draft regulations will allow al fresco dining to remain a reality for these businesses and provide much-needed continuity for another year while we seek to update the permanent measures through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. I commend this instrument to the Committee.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I warmly support these regulations and congratulate my noble friend on bringing them forward. My only concern is about the ability to reach out and consult organisations representing the disabled, which I will come to in a moment.
In her introductory remarks, my noble friend mentioned what this will mean for the hospitality sector, and I warmly support that for the reasons she gave. The sector suffered heavy losses during the Covid pandemic, and it is gratifying that tourists are now returning to areas such as London—and North Yorkshire, to a certain extent—in waves that we have not seen since the pre-pandemic days of 2019. That is very welcome.
I had the good fortune and honour to chair the ad hoc Select Committee on the Licensing Act 2003 and, similarly, the follow-up committee. I was delighted that the Liaison Committee allowed us to conduct a further, follow-up inquiry. One of the issues that struck us during that inquiry was how to reach out to interested affected groups, such as organisations and groups representing the disabled, and how best to catch their attention if there was a licensing application that may be of interest or concern to them.
Can my noble friend put my mind at rest in that regard? I think she said that each individual licence is subject to a seven-day consultation, so I would like to know what mechanism local authorities use in that regard.
I note that paragraph 10.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum attached to the regulations says:
“No formal consultation has taken place on this measure”.
Perhaps one would not have expected a consultation for the reasons that my noble friend gave, that this is a continuation and a renewal. This is my main concern here. We all know disabled people and partially sighted people—they are represented in both Houses of Parliament. One error of these regulations, or any licensing application applied under them, would be if those people were not reached out to under each individual licensing application.
On a lighter note—this is not really about a pavement application—when coming back down St Martin’s Lane in the daytime today, I passed Stringfellows, which is a well-known restaurant establishment, and I was rather struck by an orange leaflet that had great prominence on two of its doors. It has applied for a renewal of a sex establishment licence as a sexual entertainment venue. I realise that this is without the remit of today’s debate, but I will write to my noble friend with a copy of the notice. We spent hours looking line by line through the Licencing Act 2003; I like to think that I am fairly interested in licensing, but it was news to me that we have any sexual entertainment venue licensed in London or any other part of this country.
I look forward to my noble friend’s response on the consultation, not just of these regulations but of each individual licence application under the regulations before us.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, that conjures up a new image of a pavement licence for Stringfellows.
I had better remind the Committee of my relevant interests in this regard as a councillor and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
The pavement licencing regulations are very positive and I am pleased that they will be rolled over. I have one or two questions. Even in my less-than-warm part of Yorkshire, this has been a positive move—that is the good news. However, I wonder why, when these regulations were first considered, there was no thought about an automatic rollover for businesses that had made an application and had fulfilled their obligations under the licence, and about which there had been no complaints. For businesses there is now additional bureaucracy every year when they have to make an application to the local authority. That is my first point.
I have raised my second question before. Businesses now have the opportunity to trade on the public highway. The public highway is owned by the public and must be maintained by the public. One wonders whether there ought to be a rental income for the local authority from the business for the use of the highway. Local authorities are cash-strapped as it is, and any form of additional income would be welcome. I say that because I think the licence income is very small; I think I heard the Minister say it was £100 maximum. Some establishments use quite a lot of their highway if they have a good frontage, and there ought to be some income there for the local authority.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I was interested to hear the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, about Stringfellows. I understand—only from posters on the Underground, believe me—that it is known for its Magic Mike performances. The idea of these being subject to pavement licences is a bit mind-blowing, but you never know what will happen in London.
This SI is the third extension to the regulations permitting the rapid application process for businesses to obtain pavement licences. We understand that this is a temporary provision pending the introduction of permanent changes in the levelling-up Bill. The introduction of this power during Covid undoubtedly had a very positive effect for the small businesses it was intended to support—in fact, it probably saved quite a lot of them from extinction. It has also created a vibrant outdoor eating and drinking culture in many of our high streets—including where I live—which has enlivened and invigorated them very positively. We therefore will not be objecting to this SI.
However, I have a few questions for the Minister, which I shall put to her as briefly as possible. First, during the debates on the pavement licence section of the levelling-up Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, rightly raised the issue of ensuring that our pavements are accessible to all. The noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Pinnock, both commented on this. The noble Lord said:
“I simply wish to reassert the primary purpose of the pavement. It is not a place for excessive A-boards, advertisements, marketing materials or sprawling seating. It is a place to connect people. It is a place where we can meet on our streets. Yet, all too often, we experience inaccessibility, obstacles and problems when we are simply trying to go about our daily business. This is bad enough for anybody, but for those of us who use guide dogs or wheelchairs it can often be an impossibility”.—[Official Report, 22/5/23; col. 646.]
He also raised the issue of e-scooters being littered across pavements.
I understand from previous answers from the Minister that local authorities will be encouraged to take the needs of all users into account when considering licence applications. I hope that she will be sympathetic to amendments to the levelling-up Bill in this regard. It might really help if we could approach an organisation such as the Royal National Institute of Blind People to get some guidance about what would help people with visual impairments to cope with this kind of street trading.
Secondly, the issue of cost was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. While I appreciate that the Government and all of us want to give small businesses every chance to recover from Covid without imposing any further costs on them, it does not seem fair that local authorities, which are also recovering from the financial burdens of Covid, should take these costs on themselves. The Minister will be very aware that the Local Government Association has long held the view that councils should be able determine such costs relating to the full cost recovery of issuing licences. I can see that in the short term we would not want to impose any further financial burdens on small businesses, but will the Government give further consideration to this when the measures become permanent as part of the Bill?
I would like to ask the Minister about the seven-day application process. Most applications will be by a delegated authority for licensing officers to consider. Should there be a contested application, for example, local authorities have to by law give seven days’ notice of a meeting. That is a bit tricky if the licence has to be considered within seven days. I wonder how that is going to be dealt with.
Finally, when debating this issue in the other place my honourable friend Sarah Owen, the MP for Luton North, rightly raised the support that could be provided to small businesses through the non-domestic rating system. As we are currently in the process of that Bill going through your Lordships’ House, is the Minister able to give the same small businesses being supported by pavement licences any reassurance about how the Government intend to support them further by provisions in that Bill?
We have no hesitation in supporting this SI. We all want those small businesses which have been helped by it to continue to thrive.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions on these draft regulations. As I previously outlined, these regulations continue our support for the hospitality sector’s economic recovery from the coronavirus pandemic and give support to businesses in uncertain times with global inflation. As we have heard, this extension will give businesses extra support for another year. I thank noble Lords for their support for that across the Committee.
A number of points were raised, and I will go through them. Accessibility was quite rightly bought up by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. This is very important. I have met my noble friend Lord Holmes more than once about this issue. I continue to talk to him. Of course, pavements must always be accessible to everyone, regardless of their mobility needs. As such, this condition applies to all temporary pavement licences issued by councils. If the conditions are not met, the licences can be revoked.
The pavement licence guidance says that in most circumstances a minimum of 1.5 metres of space should be kept clear between an obstacle and the edge of the footpath. That is for everyone, whether it be wheelchairs, buggies or just people who need a little more space to walk safely around our town. This will continue to apply under the extended provisions. We work with disabled people through the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, the Royal National Institute of Blind People and the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association. This guidance has always been refined even further after speaking to them, to ensure that local authorities consider the needs of all people when setting conditions and making decisions.
In terms of local particularities, because areas differ, local authorities may also wish to review any local conditions they have set in relation to access and safety. That is really important. Local people know best about their towns and villages. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked about automatic rollover. I can understand the reasoning behind this, but we want to ensure that the community continues to have a say. We know that in communities some people may say that it is fine, but I think we should ask, so we need an annual consultation just to check that everything is going right, and that people are happy with what is being delivered.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor of Stevenage and Lady Pinnock, brought up the issue of income for local authorities. There is always a balance between money for the council and the cost to businesses. The £100 is a cap. Some local authorities do not charge anything; I was hearing of one such the other day. They may be much wealthier councils than others so can afford to do that, or they may prioritise small businesses at a particularly difficult time, but it is a cap. Looking further towards the future, the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill that is going through the House looks at higher levels of cost to businesses. Again, though, they will be caps; they will not be required to be charged. It is important that local authorities have the flexibility to do that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned visible barriers. I will take this issue back and we will have another discussion about it. I certainly know from personal experience that al fresco dining is wonderful; it makes our streets look so much more interesting at times, and it is lovely to sit out. However, the ones with the barriers around them seem much more sensible to me. I will take that back to the department. I will not forget; I will come back to her.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I thank the Minister for doing that. My worry is that I think that was initially included in the first set of regulations, and I wonder why it has somehow been taken out. But I will wait for an answer.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am interested in the answer as well, so I will definitely come back to the noble Baroness on that.
As I say, the measure also refers to the issue of non-domestic rates, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. Non-domestic rates are important revenue for local authorities. Again, it is about balance: if you lower them for businesses, that is good for businesses, but then we have to make that up in some way for local authorities.
I think I have answered everything. I will check Hansard tomorrow, and obviously I will send a letter if necessary. Did I miss something?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
On the non-domestic rates issue, we have raised the point during the course of the Bill, which my noble friend Lady Hayman has been dealing with, about the fact that there is disparity in treatment between online businesses and the kind of small businesses that we are talking about that operate on our high streets. As we go through the process of further consideration of the Bill, we need to think about that because it would be a way of giving more support to those small businesses and perhaps getting online businesses to pay a bit more of their fair share towards the tax cost in this country.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I know that will be an issue as the Bill comes back on Report.
I shall conclude. We believe that extending the temporary pavement licence provisions through these regulations is necessary to support food and drink hospitality businesses. That is particularly important when we consider how badly affected they were by the pandemic. These temporary pavement licence measures have already been very successful in supporting that sector in its economic recovery and getting it out of the pandemic. They will enable that success to continue and provide much-needed certainty to businesses in their planning for the coming years. I thank noble Lords for taking part, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.
House of Lords
Support for Migrant Victims
(10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Gale
To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the answer by Lord Sharpe of Epsom on 1 December 2022 (HL Deb col 1869), what progress they have made in evaluating the pilot of the Support for Migrant Victims scheme; and when, if at all, they intend to rescind their reservation on Article 59 of the European Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (the Istanbul Convention).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, we are carefully considering the findings of the support for migrant victims scheme pilot evaluation to inform any future policy decisions. Once we have considered all the evidence in the round, we will communicate our decision on the Article 59 reservation.
Baroness Gale (Lab)
While I thank the Minister for his reply, it is practically identical to the one that he gave me on 1 December last year. How long does it take to evaluate a pilot scheme? This has been going on now for more than two years. How much longer is it going to take and, when it is accepted, will he report back to the House so that the Government can then consider removing the reservation on Article 59?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her praise for my consistency. I do not know when the consideration will be completed but, as soon as it is, I shall of course report back to the House on all the matters that she has raised.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
For as long as the Government take to come to a view on this, there will be thousands of women—mainly women—living in desperate situations and forced to live with their abusers. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s report and the feedback have been very thorough and the recommendations are very clear—and, as the noble Baroness said, this has been going on for some time now. As the commissioner said:
“We urgently need to put safety before immigration status when it comes to domestic abuse victims”.
Do the Government now agree?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the first thing that I would say is that the pilot may have concluded but the scheme is still in operation and is continuing to be funded. We are providing a further £1.4 million a year until 2024-25 to continue to support the migrant victims scheme, so the circumstances that the noble Baroness describes are certainly not the case. We have read and, obviously, published the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s report, and we will respond to that in full very soon.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, noble Lords will know that sometimes the evaluation of schemes takes a long time and there has to be not only an evaluation but a consultation. Could my noble friend the Minister go into a bit more detail on who has to be consulted and what particular issues there are, and why it is taking so long to be evaluated?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Yes, I can. The experts have given evidence from within the sector, and we have also looked at evidence from police representatives and a variety of others. As I say, I cannot answer the question as to why it has taken so long, but it is good that the evidence is being considered in full and, as I say, I shall follow up with a full report as soon as we have a response to publish.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, which aspect of Article 59 do the Government have a concern about? Noble Lords will remember that this is about migrant women who are victims of violence, but it is not carte blanche to give them all residence; it is very carefully caveated. I remind noble Lords that it is where the competent authority considers that it is necessary in order to get them to co-operate with law enforcement. Can the noble Lord help me a little with what the problem is?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
In response to the noble Baroness’s question, it is important to note that we are far from alone in this. As noble Lords will be aware, the majority of countries that have ratified the Istanbul convention have reservations on one or more of the 81 clauses. In the case of Article 59, I think there are 12 other countries that still have reservations. We have made it very clear that our compliance position on Article 59 is under review, pending the support for migrant victims scheme evaluation. Our reservation is without prejudice to the policy conclusions that we reach in the light of this evaluation. I cannot really go further than that at the moment, but I will come back to the noble Baroness and the rest of the House as soon as I possibly can.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that in the current hostile environment towards migration, women whose immigration status depends on their husband are under even greater pressure to remain in possibly violent relationships?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am afraid I do not accept the hostile environment remark. What I should say with regard to the situation the noble Baroness describes, which I think comes down to data sharing and the firewall situation that often gets raised here, is that both the police and immigration enforcement share a commitment to safeguard individuals they encounter. We acknowledge that data sharing between the police and the Home Office can be a contributing factor that can influence the decisions of migrant victims not to report a crime and that perpetrators can sometimes use the victim’s immigration status to exert fear or control, but that will inform the migrant victims protocol which is due to be published at the end of this year.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, was this not meant to be one of the flagships of the Conservative Government? Tackling violence against women is claimed by a lot of people to be a really important theme of Conservative policy, and I would like to know why the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, is not getting an answer sooner. Could not the Minister at least give us some reasons? He says he does not know the reasons: could he not look into this so that we do not have to have another Question about this next week? The International Agreements Committee was very concerned about this. The case of migrant workers has been made: they are in a very vulnerable position.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I say to the noble Earl that we ratified the convention and that was the point behind the reservation: we would have been unable to ratify if we had not laid a reservation against Article 59. I also say that in most respects we go further that, or are at least fully compliant with, all the other aspects of the Istanbul convention. We go further, for example, on issues like FGM and stalking protection orders. So I do not really accept the noble Earl’s premise, I am afraid.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, last year the Domestic Abuse Commissioner stated that it is likely that 32,000 victims who have no recourse to public funds will require support each year. As the noble Lord has just said, the Government announced a further £1.4 million to extend support for migrant victims in the coming year. How many people does the Minister think that will support? For his information, I will be seeing the Domestic Abuse Commissioner next Tuesday, so it would be very good to be able to supply her with the answer to my question.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I know that the pilot helped 425 victims and, since the ongoing scheme has been extended, 950 in total—including those 425—have been helped. Those are the main figures that I have at the moment. The “no recourse to public funds” policy is based on the principle that access to state support should reflect a migrant’s strength of connection to the UK. Immigration policy is clear that migrants coming to the UK should be able to provide for themselves financially without relying on benefits from the state. Access to public funds is normally granted only to those who have been given indefinite leave to remain. However, other support is available to migrants who have suffered domestic abuse through destitute domestic violence concessions—three months’ crisis support through which individuals can access safe accommodation and public funds—and through the domestic violence indefinite leave to remain route.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, Mary Tudor said that, when she died, “Calais” would be engraved on her heart. When the Home Secretary moves to higher realms, will “In due course” be engraved on hers?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, it is impossible to follow that question, so I will follow the question from the Cross Benches. Does the Minister agree that it is very important that the Home Secretary, Ministers in the other place and officials in his department know the views of Members of the House of Lords? My noble friend Lady Gale raised this six months ago. What representations or pressure has the Minister made to or put on the various Home Secretaries we have had in that period, and their officials, about the views of the House of Lords? After today, will he go back and say, “Baroness Gale has raised this again; she has the support of the House and something should be done about it”?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Noble Lords can rest assured that I will take this back. However, I have heard in many debates in the House in recent weeks calls for more evidence. The fact is that we have evidence and we are considering it carefully. Noble Lords should applaud that.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
There is a degree of urgency in this that the Minister is not acknowledging. We do not ratify Article 59 because it is still the Government’s policy that, other than those who benefit from the little pilot scheme, local authorities are not allowed to permit migrant women who are subject to domestic abuse to access shelters. This disgrace is going on and we should stop it as soon as possible.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I have just outlined some of the other options available to the migrant women the noble Lord describes. They are far from without support. As I have alluded to, there is also a migrant victims protocol detailing other aspects of the work being done that will be published towards the end of this year.
Community Health Services: Waiting Lists
(10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron
To ask His Majesty’s Government what recent assessment they have made of current levels of waiting lists and times for community health services for (1) children and young people, and (2) adults.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
We regularly monitor community health services’ waiting lists and recognise the variability between the number of people waiting and the time on waiting lists across services in local areas. We are committed to reducing waiting lists; that is why the NHS Long Term Workforce Plan sets commitments to grow the community workforce, with increases in training places for district nurses and allied health professionals and a renewed focus on retaining our existing staff.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, long waits have a more severe effect on children because delays in assessment and treatment have a knock-on effect on their communication skills, social and educational development and mental well-being. With over 37% of children and young people on waiting lists for community health services for more than 18 weeks, compared to under 16% of adults, when will the Government address this ever-widening gap and what steps are they taking to prevent a disproportionate impact on vulnerable families both now and in the long term?
Lord Markham (Con)
The noble Baroness is correct about the urgency for young people; I have personal experience of this as well. We are taking steps by piloting nine early language and support services for all children focused on exactly what the noble Baroness mentioned. There is £70 million behind that pilot, with the intention being that we learn lessons from that and roll it out quickly.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend will know that a number of surveys have identified that over half a million adults are waiting for adult care assessments. The normal waiting time is 28 days, but for some it is, sadly, significantly longer, which has a disproportionate effect on some of the most vulnerable. What action are the Government taking to reduce it?
Lord Markham (Con)
We are starting to see a blue- print which is beginning to work. The highest waiting list for adults is related to musculoskeletal issues. Since we put an improvement framework in place, 91% of people are now being seen within 12 weeks—a big improvement. We are moving to self-referral also, and digital therapeutics beyond that. There is a road map in place that we need to apply across other areas.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, within the published data for wait times in community health services, we see that some people face very long waits for home oxygen assessments, including some waiting for over a year. Given that home oxygen is key for many with respiratory conditions staying out of hospital, will the Minister prioritise looking into why we are seeing these delays, and ensure those who need home oxygen do not face unnecessary waits?
Lord Markham (Con)
As noble Lords probably know, we published this data for the first time in March, so it is only now we are getting the data that we can truly work on it. It sets out 35 different areas where we understand those waiting lists for the first time, so we know which ones to prioritise—home oxygen being clearly one of those.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, with a staff absence rate of 5.6% overall for NHS community staff, which is equivalent to 75,000 staff, what are the Government doing to address this high level of sickness, including mental health sickness? Without the staff, the services cannot be provided. Can the Minister also explain what is being done to target those who have particular training in looking after children, given that in some areas the waiting lists for children are incredibly high, particularly for mental health services for children in the community?
Lord Markham (Con)
The noble Baroness is correct: absenteeism is often an example, in the same way as poor retention is, of problems in the wider workplace and the pressures that people have to face now. That is why the long-term workforce plan, which I think was welcomed by all noble Lords, looks to tackle every aspect: recruiting more staff so the pressures on individuals are reduced; making sure we have training and retention plans in place; and the necessary skills training in each area, including that of young people.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham
My Lords, in a recent survey of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, over 90% agreed that unpaid carers are now coming forward with an increased level of need, with directors ranking burnout as the number one reason for the increasing carer breakdown over the past year. Unpaid carers are clearly bearing the brunt of shortages in health and social care support, so can the Minister say what the Government can do to help more with unpaid carers?
Lord Markham (Con)
We all agree that unpaid carers are the backbone and hidden army behind a lot of what we see. We have made some good moves in that direction. We have the set-up for leave, so that they can have time away and a reduction in stress. We are setting up payment for them, albeit we all accept that there is such a hidden army we need to do more.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, recent research has found that almost three in five disabled children seeking physical and talking therapies are waiting more than 12 months for appointments, which is totally unacceptable? How do the Government plan to address such a large backlog and improve opportunities for disabled children? Perhaps the Minister can elucidate on that particular area.
Lord Markham (Con)
Unfortunately, as we know, we have a backlog in quite a few areas, often as a consequence of the pandemic and the period when we could not see as many people as we would have liked to. I wish I could say there was a quick solution; we all recognise the long-term solution is the long-term workforce plan, where we need to address the vacancies and have more staff to increase the output and supply. We are putting in a record investment of £2.4 billion behind this, but I freely admit it is not an overnight solution.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interest in the register and my association with the Alzheimer’s Society. My noble friend will know that, when asked, most people will say that when they die, they would like to die at home in their own bed. There is one group of people for whom there seems to be no structured plan to make that possible, and that is for people with dementia and Alzheimer’s. They are cared for at home until the end of their life, but the end of their life very often ends up in a hospital ward—the most inappropriate place for somebody with dementia, unless there is a genuine medical need to be there. Could my noble friend look to see if we can put together a structured plan that would be of help to families in planning the end of life of close relatives? I particularly do not mean something that follows the way the Liverpool care pathway was put together.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank my noble friend. This was actually a conversation of a big task force summit that we had just last week. We commented that a lot of people have pregnancy plans, for instance, which might say that they want to have birth planned at home; a lot of people will have “Do not resuscitate” plans; what we do not have enough of are frailty plans, which say, “I don’t want to go into hospital. I’d rather be cared for at home. I know it might mean that I don’t live for quite as long, but that’s my preference”. I think there is a whole debate that we need to have to start to move towards that, and to make sure we have that support in the community to do it as well.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the spare capacity of therapists in the private sector, some of them specialising in the mental health of children? As we have such long waiting lists for children and mental health, why is that not being used?
Lord Markham (Con)
The noble Lord is correct, and my understanding is that we are looking to use the independent sector more and more. I will check and verify this, as it was from the briefing probably about three or four months ago, but my belief is that about 51% of the physiotherapy that we use is from the private sector. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord that we need to use the independent sector more and more in these situations—something pioneered by the noble Lord, Lord Reid, over there.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, every day, about seven children will develop cancer; eight out of 10 will survive more than five years with modern care, but these children who survive require long-term community care, both for their families and themselves. Would the Minister agree that the integrated care pathways developed by integrated care systems should improve community care for cancer-surviving children?
Lord Markham (Con)
Yes; our whole direction of travel, as noble Lords are aware, is putting more and more power in the hands of the local integrated care boards. Going into the detail of it, the whole workforce plan moves a lot of the emphasis away from treatment in hospitals into care in the community—primary and prevention. This is a direction of travel that I think we all agree on, which is why we are putting more resources behind it, albeit that these things take time.
Cement Industry: Carbon Dioxide
(10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lucas
To ask His Majesty’s Government what proposals they have to support lower volumes of carbon dioxide production, as well as increased carbon capture and storage, in the cement industry.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to working with the cement sector to explore decarbonisation options and are pursuing several strategic funding and policy initiatives. This includes developing options for access to CCUS. In March this year, as part of the CCUS cluster sequencing process, the Government published the Track-1 project negotiation list, which included the Hanson Padeswood cement works project. That was one of five projects to proceed to negotiations for support through the relevant business model.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that encouraging Answer. As cement accounts for about 8% of our carbon dioxide output, this is a crucial area for us to pay attention to. May I draw my noble friend’s attention to the importance of standards in this area? So many specify which materials should be used, rather than what performance should be achieved. If the Government could help the transformation of that, there would be much more ability to use bath furnace slag and more modern additives such as graphene.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The figures I have are slightly different; my figures say that the sector accounts for 1.5% of the UK’s total greenhouse gas emissions. The sector has made strong progress in reducing its emissions. Of course, we stand by to help it further. It is a particularly difficult sector to decarbonise, given that 70% of its emissions are process-related.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I have to admit that I agree with the Minister; I think the figure is 1.5%. We have an important cement industry in this country on which many other sectors are dependent. However, five out of 10 plants are not in one of the industrial areas in which we are going to have a concentration of carbon capture and storage—there are five others outside those areas. In the past, the Government have suggested that there would be a lifeline for enabling carbon capture and storage for those other five. Where are we on that? Are the Government still positive about aiding the whole sector to decarbonise?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank the Liberal Democrats for agreeing with something I have said, for a change; that is a welcome departure from normal practice. I agree with the noble Lord, and as I said, this is a difficult sector to decarbonise. We are working with it and having regular meetings. There are 10 cement plants in the UK, only one of which is situated in an existing cluster. Of course, we are considering expressions of interest from additional clusters at the moment. I would not want to predict that process. Whatever happens, CCUS will clearly be a key technology for many cement plants. We have funded a number of feasibility projects with existing suppliers and will continue to work with them.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, what are the Government doing to encourage alternative building methods that do not need cement, or need much smaller volumes of cement? That would help with the carbon issue quite dramatically.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord makes a good point. We are exploring the role that demand-side policies could play in creating demand for low-carbon cement, or indeed less demand for cement. We recently concluded a consultation which sought feedback on proposals for low-carbon standards, and we will continue to pursue that.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, as well as CO2 being produced as a by-product of the chemical reaction in cement production, the other main source of emissions is the high heat required: around 1,400 degrees centigrade or more. What work are the Government doing to support a road map for the development of electric kilns?
Lord Callanan (Con)
That is one of technologies we are looking at. We also gave £3.2 million to the Mineral Products Association to develop a low-carbon fuel mix for cement. It held a trial at Hanson’s Ribblesdale plant and Tarmac’s Tunstead plant using a mix of 100% net-zero fuels, including hydrogen.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, I too agree with the Minister that the concrete industry accounts for approximately 1.5% of emissions in this country. Globally, the figure rises to 8%, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said. Last year, a report from the Low Carbon Concrete Group suggested that the UK concrete industry could become a carbon sink by the 2040s. Welcome though this prediction is, we must recognise that this is a global problem. What steps are the Government taking to encourage other countries to set out and achieve similarly ambitious goals?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Both the Liberal Democrats and Labour agreeing with me is destroying my credibility on this side of the House. I agree with the noble Lord; we are seeking to work with other countries as well. One of the issues in the sector, as we look to reform the ETS, is carbon leakage. We must make sure we do all we can to avoid it.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, if we are to reduce the use of cement, the move from demolishing buildings and rebuilding them—particularly in the commercial sector—to adaptation is an important part of that. As I walk down Victoria Street every morning, I see buildings being demolished and buildings replacing others which are only 40 years old. That is clearly crazy, and adaptation is a way for us to build a more sustainable economy. What are the Government doing to improve incentives and regulations to make the adaptation of established buildings, rather than their replacement, a priority?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord makes a good point. We should, of course, always look at adaptation. As for his particular example, I can think of one building on Victoria Street, occupied by my department, which definitely should be demolished as soon as possible—
Lord Callanan (Con)
There is too much agreement in the House today with the Liberal Democrats. Setting aside personal views, his overall point is right: of course we should look at adaptation and reuse if possible.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
What are the Government doing about adaptation—not just looking at it; are they doing anything?
Lord Callanan (Con)
This is one of a number of different policies that we need to look at. Does the noble Baroness mean adaptation to climate change, or does she mean adaptation of existing buildings? Of course we are looking at both.
Small and Medium-sized Housebuilders
(10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornhill
To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the letter to the Prime Minister from housebuilding firms on 6 July, what steps they are taking to strengthen the viability of small and medium-sized housebuilders.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
SMEs are an indispensable part of our housebuilding sector, and we are committed to strengthening their viability. We are providing financial support through our £1.5 billion levelling-up home building fund, which will help SMEs build around 42,000 homes. Through the £1 billion ENABLE Build guarantee scheme and the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill changes to the planning system, we will further support SMEs in making the planning process easier to navigate, faster and more predictable.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I thank the Minister for her genuinely helpful Answer. With planning permissions at an all-time low and taking longer, the Home Builders Federation says that SME builders are going out of business now, while 145,000 desperately needed homes are on hold due to, to quote its letter to the Prime Minister, the Government’s “anti-development policies”. Does the Minister agree that this is largely a result of policy conflicts and mixed messages from the Government, as reported even today in the Times? It might be helpful to SMEs if they knew what the Government were doing about the 48 local authorities that have paused or withdrawn their local plans and the 74 that are affected by Natural England’s nutrient neutrality building moratorium. SMEs in these areas need urgent action; they cannot just pack up and go elsewhere.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I have explained how we are supporting them financially, but we are aware that the planning system, for example, is not as user-friendly as it should be to SME builders. That is why we are making changes in the LUR Bill, but we are also trying to ensure that the planning system is now better funded, so any time now we will see an increase in planning fees, for example, by 35% for major applications and 25% for other applications. All this investment should make sure that SMEs find the system simpler and easier to use, and that therefore they can access it and build more houses for us.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, the letter to the Prime Minister refers not to an anti-development policy but to an anti-development environment. I submit that the anti-development environment is in part caused by the fact that people are fed up with the large-volume housebuilders building identikit housing estates up and down the country, and that the people more likely to reflect the desires and wishes of local communities are the smaller, SME housebuilders.
The problem is also in design. We have had the Royal Fine Art Commission, which gave way to the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, which in turn has given way to the Design Council, but none of these bodies has really had teeth. What more can we do to ensure that there is greater control over the sort of properties we are building in the country, to give more training to local planning officers and to increase not only their quantity but their quality?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I think we need both types. We need the large developers building large numbers of houses; we also need to support our SMEs across this country. My noble friend is absolutely right. That is why we see quite a lot in the LUR Bill about beautiful homes for people in this country. Therefore, local authorities will in future have to produce design codes for their areas.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, one way of helping small and medium-sized housebuilders would be finally to end the pernicious practice of retentions. Many small construction firms, often with very low profit margins, are crippled by having up to 5% of the funds owed to them withheld, and sometimes never paid at all. Roofing firms alone are currently owned £300 million. This prevents them investing in growth through skills or technology, and may even force them into insolvency. There were over 4,000 construction insolvencies in the year to March 2023. What specific progress are the Government making to deliver their long-standing goal of ending retentions by 2025, and specifically in removing retentions from all public contracts?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The noble Lord brings up a really important issue. I understand that other government departments apart from DLUHC are meeting the sector and working on this issue. We will deliver for the sector as soon as we possibly can.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, securing planning permission is the major barrier to growth, according to 93% of SME builders. The Minister has mentioned the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill a couple of times. In order to make a real difference quickly and promote the use of SMEs in local authority tenders, will she accept our Amendment 244, which asks local authorities to consider SMEs when granting planning permissions?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I can tell the noble Baroness that I will look at her amendment.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, further to my noble friend Lord Swire’s excellent question, the number of sites with planning consent for fewer than 100 dwellings has fallen by 38% over the past five years. These are the sites most used by small and medium-sized builders. Is there not a case for the planning system to promote much more effectively the use of smaller sites, not just to help smaller builders but to strengthen and diversify the construction industry and accelerate the delivery of new homes?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My noble friend is right. That is why the NPPF includes policies to support SMEs; for example, it sets out that local planning authorities should identify land to accommodate at least 10% of their housing requirements on sites no larger than one hectare. That might seem large, but we also make it clear in the framework that local planning authorities should work with developers to look at subdivisions in those areas where we could help speed up the delivery of homes, particularly by SMEs delivering those homes.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, the brickmaker Forterra has shut its Howley Park brickmaking plant because of a 31% decline in demand for bricks in the past 12 months. That coincides with news that, in this last financial year, the Minister’s department has sent back to the Treasury £225 million unspent on affordable housing. Is it not time that there was some connection inside the department to make sure that the available money is spent on affordable housing, possibly affordable social housing as a countercyclical measure at a time when the private sector is under such pressure?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I do not know whether the noble Lord is aware, but we have been through quite a lot of economic volatility, which has obviously led to developers’ slowdown. Therefore, the amount of money mentioned in the Guardian article that I believe the noble Lord is referring to, about money going back to the Treasury, is not quite correct. It is actually being put into projects of more than one year, so it will be forward spent. As the economy strengthens, as it is doing now in the housing sector, that money will be available to build affordable and other housing.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, the steep decline in SME builders is deeply disturbing. Their market share has dropped from 40% to 10% in the past 35 years. How does increasing the market dominance of a small number of big players square with the Government’s often-mentioned mission to drive economic growth through innovation and competition?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
As I said in answer to a previous question, we need both. We need everybody, including small builders, local authorities and larger builders, to make sure that we build the houses that this country urgently needs. I am aware that the SME sector is currently struggling with challenges, particularly with the macroeconomic climate. We will continue to prioritise supporting the industry and local areas and delivering the safe, high-quality homes that this country needs.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the House often discusses problems of labour and skills shortages. Yesterday the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Apprenticeships, of which I declare that I am an officer, put out a report, one focus of which was the difficulties that small and medium enterprises, including builders, are encountering in being able to take on apprenticeships and see them through. What are the Government doing to deal with that pressing issue?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, it is a pressing issue. The interesting thing is that we recognise that the SMEs play a crucial role in promoting skills in the construction industry and are responsible for many of the training programmes, particularly for new entrants into the sector. We are supporting construction skills through the Construction Industry Training Board, which last year spent nearly £150 million on training grants and apprenticeships across the sector. It is important that we continue to support them, because we need these skills in the sector and we need to grow it.
Bank of England: Interest Rate Policy
(10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
To ask His Majesty’s Treasury what assessment they have made of the impact of the Bank of England’s interest rate policy.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest, as in the register, as chairman of a bank.
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Penn) (Con)
My Lords, we constantly monitor the UK economy’s performance and outlook, and we acknowledge the pain that rising interest rates are causing for many households. However, setting interest rates is the responsibility of the independent Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England. The Government do not comment on the conduct or effectiveness of monetary policy. We will continue to support the MPC as it takes action and focuses on making the tough decisions necessary to tackle inflation.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I fully understand the need to respect the independence of the Bank of England, but that it is not the same as denying it being subject to proper accountability. The Bank of England was responsible for a huge increase in the money supply through quantitative easing—which resulted in part in the inflation that we are now experiencing—despite warnings from Andy Haldane, its chief economist at that time, that that would result in inflation. Andy Haldane is now suggesting that there may be an overreaction and overcorrection in putting interest rates up to the extent that they are being. This will cause misery to millions of people. The Bank of England should surely be accountable for this.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the Bank of England should be and, indeed, is accountable for the decisions that it makes, but it is not for government to comment on the conduct or effectiveness of monetary policy. He is right that high levels of inflation and, therefore, high interest rates, are causing pain. That is why the Government are taking action to support people at this difficult time, including the mortgage charter, agreed by my right honourable friend the Chancellor, that covers around 90% of the market and gives people options when they are facing higher mortgage rates to make sure that their payments continue to be affordable.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I have great sympathy with the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. I would like to hear from the Minister that there will be no attempt to compromise the independence of the Bank of England, but that that does not mean that improvements cannot be made; for example, to counter what many of us think is an underlying flaw of groupthink and lack of diversity that leads the Bank to decisions that could be made more optimal with a different set of parameters.
Does the Minister also recognise that the Government themselves could influence inflation far more effectively if they focused on doing so? For example—to name just three actions—they could have dealt with the staff shortages that have so driven inflation; they could have done a great deal more, much earlier, to deal with price gouging by many of our major supermarkets; and they could have kept in place the energy price support scheme, which helped SMEs hold down their prices. Will the Government then take responsibility for their share in not taking those steps to stem inflation?
Baroness Penn (Con)
On the noble Baroness’s first point, my initial Answer set out that the Government continue to be committed to the independence of the Bank of England. She is right that government policy can also affect inflation. The OBR said that the energy price guarantee brought inflation down by around two points. Our labour market supply measures, including expanding access to childcare, were the biggest supply side impact in a Budget that the OBR has ever measured. If we were to provide direct subsidies to mortgages, as the Liberal Democrats propose, that would have an inflationary effect, meaning that interest rates would be higher for longer.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, if the Government feel unable to comment on Bank of England policy, to whom is the Bank of England accountable?
Baroness Penn (Con)
The Bank of England is accountable to both the Government and Parliament. The noble Baroness referred to a report being done by the Economic Affairs Committee in this House. I am sure we will pay close attention to the outcomes of that.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
Has it occurred to my noble friend’s Treasury colleagues that the stream of increases in Bank of England interest rates is both deflationary, obviously, and inflationary, in that every 1% increase in the interest rate adds between £15 billion and £20 billion to government debt servicing? Also, since the Government have up to £30 billion or £50 billion per increase in the RPI level, any impact of these interest rate increases on RPI further increases government spending. We really are looking at a double-edged sword. Other, more direct measures are obviously needed to reduce RPI, the pressure for pay demands and all sorts of other inflationary effects.
Baroness Penn (Con)
While I will not be tempted by my noble friend to comment on the conduct of monetary policy, I agree that, in the context of high inflation, fiscal responsibility and keeping government borrowing under control are absolutely essential. That is why the Government are committed to that.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, what is it about the Government’s handling of the economy that means that, with near 0% growth, inflation is still high, despite the Prime Minister promising to halve it, and higher for longer in the UK than in many similar economies? How does the Minister think that 1 million households facing a £500 a month increase to their mortgage payments by the end of 2026 will cope? How concerned should we be at the Government’s voluntary agreement with the banks, which means that over 1 million households will miss out on the support that Labour’s mandatory scheme would have brought?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, growth is better this year than predicted and expected by some. The UK is not alone in facing high inflation. Core inflation in the UK is lower than in more than half of Europe, but we face particular underlying factors that interact with the global challenges causing inflation. The energy shock has been felt more keenly in the UK because of our historical dependence on gas, and we have labour market tightness, due in part to a rise in activity during the pandemic. That is why we are focused on measures to tackle these problems. I talked about the energy price guarantee, which brought down inflation by around two points, and our measures to address childcare. I say to the noble Baroness, reflecting the point from my noble friend, that fiscal responsibility and government borrowing have a part to play in this. That is why Labour’s plans to spend £28 billion a year of additional borrowing would be inflationary and make the problem worse.
Lord Desai (CB)
My Lords, would the Minister not agree that, although independence of the Bank of England is all right, what we need is competence? The Bank of England was more competent when it was not independent than it is now when it is.
Baroness Penn (Con)
Much as noble Lords continue to ask me to comment on the conduct of monetary policy by the Bank of England, as I said, the Government do not comment on the conduct or effectiveness of monetary policy. We continue to support the MPC as it takes action, and we focus on making the tough decisions necessary to tackle inflation.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, does the Minister not realise that this mortgage rate misery comes on top of the huge increase in the cost of energy and the continued increase in food prices and other costs? How do the multi-millionaires who run this Government find out how ordinary people are affected?
Baroness Penn (Con)
The noble Lord does not reflect on the action that has been taken by this Government that has supported those who struggle most to meet the rising cost of living, with more than £90 billion of support last year and this year focused on those who need it the most, including the energy price guarantee, direct support with energy bills and cost of living payments worth hundreds of pounds to millions of families across the country.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
Is the Minister aware that the Select Committee has received abundant evidence that central bankers talk too much?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I am not aware of all the evidence that the Select Committee that the noble Lord refers to has received, but I am sure that once the Select Committee produces its report the Government will read it with interest.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, many people recognise that we have an independent Bank of England, but we also have a Bank of England that is supposed to meet a target of 2% inflation. Given that the Bank has continuously failed to meet that target—I understand also that government can contribute to this—one would expect the Bank either to comment on government policy which it saw as inflationary or, at the same time, to be accountable for not holding to its target. Given what the Minister says about tempting her or otherwise to talk about the Bank of England and its policy, it is important that people understand that when the Bank fails to meet its target it has to be held accountable to someone, and many noble Lords have not seen that accountability.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, when the steps were taken to make the Bank of England independent, measures were also put in place to ensure that it is accountable to the Government and to Parliament for its decisions.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Minister has referred to the drivers of inflation, but she did not mention greedflation—the fact that, as the OECD figures which came out this week show, British company profits were boosted by almost one-quarter between the end of 2019 and early 2023, faster than nearly any other state’s. In the last Question, we referred to the fact that we have a huge lack of competition across our economy. Four, five or six big companies dominate all the sectors, often cross-owned by hedge funds. Are the Government going to do something about greedflation?
Baroness Penn (Con)
While the Government do not recognise the picture that the noble Baroness has painted, we are looking carefully at the data and ensuring that competition is working properly. That is why my right honourable friend the Chancellor met the major regulators last week or the week before, I believe, and agreed a plan of action in each of those areas to ensure that consumers are getting a fair deal.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, on the subject of talking too much, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has just raised, how helpful was it when the Prime Minister at the beginning of this year set a personal pledge to halve inflation from 10% to 5% when the Bank of England was forecasting 3.9% and holding a target of 2%? What does that do for the credibility and independence of the central bank?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government have always been clear that we want to halve inflation by the end of this year on the path to delivering the 2% target to which the noble Lord referred. The primary driver for that is action by the MPC, which the Government support, but it is also important that the Government make sure that fiscal policy acts in support of monetary policy and that we take action in the short term to bring down inflation; for example, through the energy price guarantee. It is important too that we take action on some of the longer-term drivers of inflation; for example, through improving energy security and supply and tackling things, such as labour supply, which are part of the drivers of where we are today.
Built Environment Committee
The Senior Deputy Speaker
Electricity Capacity (Amendment) Regulations 2023
The Earl of Courtown
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 12 June be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 5 July.
Healthcare (International Arrangements) (EU Exit) Regulations 2023
(10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Markham
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 5 June be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 5 July.
Online Safety Bill
Wednesday 12th July 2023
(10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Online Safety Act 2023 View all Online Safety Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 151-III(b) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (12 Jul 2023)
19:12 - Division on Amendment 180 - Ayes: 211 / Noes: 171 - Amendment 180 agreed.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendments made to Clause 39 in my name.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group consider regulatory accountability and the roles of Ofcom, the Government and Parliament in overseeing the new framework. The proposals include altering the powers of the Secretary of State to direct Ofcom, issue guidance to Ofcom and set strategic priorities. Ofcom’s operational independence is key to the success of this framework, but the regime must ensure that there is an appropriate level of accountability to government. Parliament will also have important functions, in particular scrutinising and approving the codes of practice which set out how platforms can comply with their duties and providing oversight of the Government’s powers.
I heard the strength of feeling expressed in Committee that the Bill’s existing provisions did not get this balance quite right and have tabled amendments to address this. Amendments 129, 134 to 138, 142, 143, 146 and 147 make three important changes to the power for the Secretary of State to direct Ofcom to modify a draft code of practice. First, these amendments replace the public policy wording in Clause 39(1)(a) with a more defined list of reasons for which the Secretary of State can make a direction. This list comprises: national security, public safety, public health and the UK’s international obligations. This is similar to the list set out in a Written Ministerial Statement made last July but omits “economic policy” and “burden to business”.
This closely aligns the reasons in the Bill with the existing power in Section 5 of the Communications Act 2003. The power is limited to those areas genuinely beyond Ofcom’s remit as a regulator and where the Secretary of State might have access to information or expertise that the regulator does not. Secondly, the amendments clarify that the power will be used only for exceptional reasons. As noble Lords know, this has always been our intent and the changes we are tabling today put this beyond doubt. Thirdly, the amendments increase the transparency regarding the use of the power by requiring the Secretary of State to publish details of a direction at the time the power is used. This will ensure that Parliament has advance sight of modifications to a code and I hope will address concerns that several directions could be made on a single code before Parliament became aware.
This group also considers Amendments 131 to 133, which create an 18-month statutory deadline for Ofcom to submit draft codes of practice to the Secretary of State to be laid in Parliament relating to illegal content, safety duties protecting children and other cross-cutting duties. These amendments sit alongside Amendment 230, which we debated on Monday and which introduced the same deadline for Ofcom’s guidance on Part 5 of the regime.
I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston, with whom I have had the opportunity to discuss these amendments in some detail as they follow up points that she and the members of her committee gave particular attention to. I beg to move.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in this group in my name: Amendments 139, 140, 144 and 145. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, for signing those amendments and for their continued support on this group. I am also grateful to my noble friend the Minister and his team for engaging with me on the issue of Secretary of State powers. He has devoted a lot of time and energy to this, which is reflected in the wide- ranging group of amendments tabled by him.
Before I go any further, it is worth emphasising that the underlying concern here is making sure that we have confidence, through this new regulation regime, that the Bill strikes the right balance of power between government, Parliament, the regulator and big tech firms. The committee that I chair—the Communications and Digital Select Committee of your Lordships’ House—has most focused on that in our consideration of the Bill. I should say also that the amendments I have brought forward in my name very much have the support of the committee as well.
These amendments relate to Clause 39, which is where the main issue lies in the context of Secretary of State powers, and we have three broad concerns. First, as it stood, the Bill handed the Secretary of State unprecedented powers to direct the regulator on pretty much anything. Secondly, these powers allowed the Government to conduct an infinite form of ping-pong with the regulator, enabling the Government to prevail in a dispute. Thirdly, this ping-pong could take place in private with no possibility of parliamentary oversight or being able to intervene, as would be appropriate in the event of a breakdown in the relationship between executive and regulator.
This matters because the Online Safety Bill creates a novel form for regulating the internet and what we can or cannot see online, in particular political speech, and it applies to the future. It is one thing for the current Government, who I support, to say that they would never use the powers in this way. That is great but, as we know, current Governments cannot speak for whoever is in power in the generations to come, so it is important that we get this right.
As my noble friend said, he has brought forward amendments to Clause 39 that help to address this. I support him in and commend him for that. The original laundry list of powers to direct Ofcom has been shortened and now follows the precedent set out in the Communications Act 2003. The government amendments also say that the Secretary of State must now publish their directions to Ofcom, which will improve transparency, and once the code is agreed Ofcom will publish changes so that Parliament can see what changes have been made and why. These are all very welcome and, as I say, they go a long way to addressing some of our concerns, but two critical issues remain.
First, the Government retain an opt-out, which means that they do not have to publish their directions if the Secretary of State believes that doing so would risk
“national security or public safety”,
or international relations. However, those points are now the precise grounds on which the Secretary of State may issue a direction and, if history is any guide, there is a real risk that we will never hear about the directions because the Government have decided that they are a security issue.
My Amendments 139 and 140 would require the Secretary of State to at least notify Parliament of the fact that a direction has been issued and what broad topic it relates to. That would not require any details to be published, so it does not compromise security, but it does give assurance that infinite, secretive ping-pong is not happening behind the scenes. My noble friend spoke so quickly at the beginning that I was not quite sure whether he signalled anything, but I hope that he may be able to respond enthusiastically to Amendments 139 and 140.
Secondly, the Government still have powers for infinite ping-pong. I appreciate that the Government have reservations about capping the number of exchanges between the Secretary of State and Ofcom, but they must also recognise the concern that they appear to be preparing the ground for any future Government to reject infinitely the regulator’s proposals and therefore prevail in a dispute about a politically contentious topic. My Amendments 144 and 145 would clarify that the Government will have a legally binding expectation that they will use no more than the bare minimum number of directions to achieve the intent set out in their first direction.
The Government might think that adding this to the Bill is superfluous, but it is necessary in order to give Parliament and the public confidence about the balance of power in this regime. If Parliament felt that the Secretary of State was acting inappropriately, we would have sufficient grounds to intervene. As I said, the Government acknowledged in our discussions the policy substance of these concerns, and as we heard from my noble friend the Minister in introducing this group, there is an understanding on this. For his part, there is perhaps a belief that what they have done goes far enough. I urge him to reconsider Amendments 144 and 145, and I hope that, when he responds to the debate on this group, he can say something about not only Amendments 139 and 140 but the other two amendments that will give me some grounds for comfort.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I realise that I am something of a fish out of water in this House, as I was in Committee, on the Bill, which is fundamentally flawed in a number of respects, including its approach to governance, which we are discussing today. Having said that, I am generally sympathetic to the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston. If we are to have a flawed approach, her amendments would improve it somewhat.
However, my approach is rather different and is based on the fairly simple but important principle that we live in a free democracy. If we are to introduce a new legislative measure such as this Bill, which has far- reaching powers of censorship taking us back 70 or 80 years in terms of the freedom of expression we have been able to develop since the 1950s and 1960s— to the days of Lady Chatterley’s Lover and the Lord Chamberlain, in equivalent terms, as far as the internet and the online world are concerned—then decisions of such a far-reaching character affecting our lives should be taken by somebody who is democratically accountable.
My approach is utterly different from that which my noble friend on the Front Bench has proposed. He has proposed amendments which limit yet further the Secretary of State’s power to give directions to Ofcom, but the Secretary of State is the only party in that relationship who has a democratic accountability. We are transferring huge powers to a completely unaccountable regulator, and today my noble friend proposes transferring, in effect, even more powers to that unaccountable regulator.
To go back to a point that was discussed in Committee and earlier on Report, if Ofcom takes certain decisions which make it impossible for Wikipedia to operate its current model, such that it has to close down at least its minority language websites—my noble friend said that the Government have no say over that and no idea what Ofcom will do—to whom do members of the public protest? To whom do they offer their objections? There is no point writing to the Secretary of State because, as my noble friend told us, they will not have had any say in the matter and we in this House will have forsworn the opportunity, which I modestly proposed, to take those powers here. There is no point writing to their MP, because all their MP can do is badger the Secretary of State. It is a completely unaccountable structure that is completely indefensible in a modern democratic society. So I object to the amendments proposed by my noble friend, particularly Amendments 136 and 137.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, the codes of practice are among the most important documents that Ofcom will produce as a result of the Bill—in effect, deciding what content we, the users of the internet, will see. The Government’s right to modify these drafts affects us all, so it is absolutely essential that the codes are trusted.
I, too, welcome the Government’s Amendments 134 to 138, which are a huge improvement on the Clause 39 that was presented in Committee. I am especially grateful that the Government have not proceeded with including economic conditions as a reason for the Secretary of State to modify draft codes, which the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, pointed out in Committee would be very damaging. But I would like the Minister to go further, which is why I put my name to Amendments 139, 140, 144 and 145.
Amendment 139 is so important at the moment. My fear is about the opt-out from publishing these directions from the Secretary of State for Ofcom to modify the draft codes, which will then allow them to be made behind closed doors between the Government and the regulator. This should not be allowed to happen. It would happen at a time when trust in the Government is low and there is a feeling that so many decisions affecting us all are taken without our knowledge. Surely it is right that there should be as much transparency as possible in exposing the pressure that the Minister is placing on the regulator. I hope that, if this amendment is adopted, it will allow Parliament to impose the bright light of transparency on the entire process, which is in danger of becoming opaque.
I am sure that no one wants a repeat of what happened under Section 94 of the Telecommunications Act 1984, which gave the Secretary of State power to give directions of a “general character” to anyone, in the “interests of national security” or international relations, as long as they did not disclose important information to Parliament. The Minister’s power to operate in total secrecy, without any accountability to Parliament, was seen by many as wrong and undemocratic. It was subsequently repealed. Amendments 139 and 140 will prevent the creation of a similar problem.
Likewise, I support Amendment 144, which builds on the previous amendments, as another brake on the control of the Secretary of State over this important area of regulations. Noble Lords in this House know how much the Government dislike legislative ping-pong—which we will see later this evening, I suspect. I ask the Minister to transfer this dislike to limiting ping-pong between the Government and the regulator over the drafting of codes of practice. It would also prevent the Secretary of State or civil servants expanding their control of the draft codes of practice from initial parameters to slightly wider sets of parameters each time that they are returned to the Minister for consideration. It will force the civil servants and the Secretary of State to make a judgment on the limitation of content and ensure that they stick to it. As it is, the Secretary of State has two bites of the cherry. They are involved in the original shaping of the draft codes of practice and then they can respond to Ofcom’s formulation. I hope the Minister would agree that it is sensible to stop this process from carrying on indefinitely. I want the users of the digital world to have full faith that the control of online content they see is above board —and not the result of secretive government overreach.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, not for the first time I find myself in quite a different place from my noble friend Lord Moylan. Before I go through some detailed comments on the amendments, I want to reflect that at the root of our disagreement is a fundamental view about how serious online safety is. The logical corollary of my noble friend’s argument is that all decisions should be taken by Secretaries of State and scrutinised in Parliament. We do not do that in other technical areas of health and safety in the physical world and we should not do that in the digital world, which is why I take such a different view—
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to make my point. I really welcome the government amendments in this group. I thank my noble friend the Minister for bringing them forward and for listening hard to the debates that we had at Second Reading and in Committee. I am very pleased to see the removal of economic policy and the burdens to business as one of the reasons that a Secretary of State could issue directions. I firmly believe that we should not be putting Secretaries of State in the position of having to trade off safety for economic growth. The reality is that big tech has found it impossible to make those trade-offs too. People who work in these companies are human beings. They are looking for growth in their businesses. Secretaries of State are rightly looking for economic growth in our countries. We should not be putting people in the position of trying to make that trade-off. The right answer is to defer to our independent regulator to protect safety. I thank my noble friend and the Government very much for tabling these amendments.
I also support my noble friend Lady Stowell, as a member of the Communications and Digital Committee that she chairs so ably. She has brought forward a characteristically thoughtful and detailed set of amendments in an attempt to look around the corners of these powers. I urge my noble friend the Minister to see whether he can find a way in the specific issues of infinite and secretive ping-pong. Taking the secretive, my noble friend Lady Stowell has found a very clever way of making sure that it is not possible for future Governments to obscure completely any direction that they are giving, while at the same time not putting at risk any national secrets. It is a very thoughtful and precise amendment. I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister can support it.
On the infinite nature of ping-pong, which I feel is quite ironic today—I am not sure anyone in this House welcomes the concept of infinite ping-pong right now, whatever our views on business later today—friends of mine in the business world ask me what is different about working in government versus working in the business world; I have worked in both big and small businesses. Mostly it is not different: people come to work wanting to do a good job and to further the objectives of the organisation that they are part of, but one of the biggest differences in government is that doing nothing and continuing to kick the can down the road is a much more viable option in the body politic than it is in the business world. Rarely is that for the good.
One of the things you learn in business is that doing nothing is often the very worst thing you can do. My worry about the infinite nature of the ping-pong is that it refers to a technical business world that moves unbelievably fast. What we do not need is to enshrine a system that enables government essentially to avoid doing anything. That is a particularly business and pragmatic reason to support my noble friend’s amendment. I stress that it is a very mild amendment. My noble friend Lady Stowell has been very careful and precise not to put unreasonable burdens on a future Secretary of State. In “Yes Minister”-speak, the bare minimum could be quite a lot. I urge my noble friend the Minister to look positively on what are extremely constructive amendments, delivered in a very thoughtful way.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, I want to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, on her amendments and to raise some concerns, in particular about Amendment 138. I do this as somebody who has had the perhaps unique experience of being leaned on by Governments around the world who sought to give us, as a platform, directions about how to handle content. The risk is real: when there is a huge public outcry and you are an elected politician, you must be seen to be doing something, and the thing that you have been doing to date is to go directly to the platforms and seek to lean on them to make the change that you want.
In future, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, has pointed out quite a few times, we are moving the accountability from the platforms to our independent regulator, Ofcom—and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, that that is the right model, as it is an independent regulator. In these amendments we are considering a mechanism whereby that political outrage can still find an outlet, and that outlet will be a direction from the Secretary of State to the regulator asking it to change the guidance that it would otherwise have issued. It is really important that we dig into that and make sure that it does not prevent legitimate political activity but, at the same time, does not replicate the problem that we have had—the lack of transparency about decision-making inside companies, which has been resolved and addressed through leaks and whistleblowers. We do not want to be in a position in which understanding what has been happening in that decision-making process, now inside government, depends on leaks and whistleblowers. Having these directions published seems critical, and I worry a lot about Amendment 138 and how it will potentially mean that the directions are not published.
I have a couple of specific questions around that process to which I hope the Minister can respond. I understand how this will work: Ofcom will send its draft code of practice to the department and, inside the department, if the Secretary of State believes that there is an issue related to national security or there is another more limited set of conditions, they will be able to issue a direction. The direction may or may not have reasons with it; if the Secretary of State trusts Ofcom, they might give their reasons, but if the Secretary of State does not trust Ofcom with the information, they will give it the bare direction with no reasons. Clause 39 gives the Secretary of State the power to either give or withhold reasons, for reasons of national security. Ofcom will then come up with an amended version of the code of practice, reflecting the direction that it has been given.
The bit that I am really interested in is what happens from a Freedom of Information Act point of view. I hope that the Minister can clarify whether it would be possible for an individual exercising their Freedom of Information Act powers to seek the original draft code of practice as it went to the department. The final code of practice will be public, because it will come to us. It may be that we are in a situation in which you can see the original—Ofcom’s draft—and the final draft as it came to Parliament, and the only bit you cannot see under Amendment 138 is the actual direction itself, if the Secretary of State chooses to withhold it. That is quite critical, because we can anticipate that in these circumstances there will be Freedom of Information Act requests and a significant public interest in understanding any direction that was given that affected the speech of people in the United Kingdom. I would expect the ICO, unless there was some compelling reason, to want that original draft from Ofcom to be made public. That is one question around the interaction of the Freedom of Information Act and the process that we are setting out here, assuming that the Secretary of State has withheld their direction.
The other question is whether the Minister can enlighten us as to the circumstances in which he thinks the Secretary of State would be happy to publish the direction. We have said that this is now related only to very narrow national security interests and we have given them that get-out, so I am curious as to whether there are any examples of the kind of direction, in legislating for a power for the Secretary of State, that would meet the narrow criteria of being those exceptional circumstances, yet not be so sensitive—to use the double negative—that the Secretary of State would want to withhold it. If there were some examples of that, it might help assure us that the withholding of publication will be exceptional rather than routine.
My fear is that Section 138 says you can withhold in some circumstances. Actually, if we read it all together and say that, by definition, the direction comes from the fact that there is a national security concern, we end up with a situation in which the lack of publication has to be on national security grounds. Those two mirror each other, and therefore the norm may be that directions are never published. The Minister might allay our concerns if he could, at least in general terms, describe the kind of directions that would meet the gateway criteria for being permissible and yet not be so sensitive that the Secretary of State would not be comfortable with them being published.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, a lot of positive and interesting things have been said that I am sympathetic to, but this group of amendments raises concerns about a democratic deficit: if too much of the Bill is either delegated to the Secretary of State or open to interference in relation to the Secretary of State and Ofcom, who decides what those priorities are? I will ask for a couple of points of clarification.
I am glad to see that the term “public policy” has been replaced, because what did that mean? Everything. But I am not convinced that saying that the Secretary of State can decide not just on national security but on public safety and public health is reassuring in the present circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Allan, has just pointed out what it feels like to be leaned on. We had a very recent example internationally of Governments leaning on big tech companies in relation to Covid policies, lockdowns and so on, and removing material that was seen to contradict official public health advice—often public health advice that turned out not to be accurate at all. There should at least have been a lot more debate about what were political responses to a terrible virus. Noble Lords will know that censorship became a matter of course during that time, and Governments interfering in or leaning on big tech directly was problematic. I am not reassured that the Government hold to themselves the ability to lean on Ofcom around those issues.
It is also worth remembering that the Secretary of State already has a huge amount of power to designate, as we have discussed previously. They can designate what constitute priority illegal offences and priority content harmful to children, and that can all change beyond what we have discussed here. We have already seen that there is a constant expansion of what those harms can be, and having those decisions removed using only secondary legislation, unaccountable to Parliament or to public scrutiny, really worries me. It is likely to give a green light to every identity group and special interest NGO to demand that the list of priority harms and so on should be dealt with. That is likely to make the job of the Secretary of State to respond to “something must be done” moral panics all the more difficult. If that is going to happen, we should have parliamentary scrutiny of it; it cannot just be allowed to happen elsewhere.
It is ironic that the Secretary of State is more democratic, because they are elected, than an unelected regulator. I just feel that there is a danger in so much smoke and mirrors. When the Minister very kindly agreed to see the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and me, I asked in a rather exasperated way why Ofcom could not make freedom of expression a priority, with codes of practice so that it would have to check on freedom of speech. The Minister said, “It’s not up to me to tell Ofcom what to do”, and I thought, “The whole Bill is telling Ofcom what to do”. That did not seem to make any sense.
I had another exchange with the present Secretary of State—again, noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that it was not a sophisticated intervention on my part—in which I said, “Why can’t the Government force the big tech companies to put freedom of expression in their terms and conditions or terms of service?” The Minister said, “They are private companies; we’re not interfering in what they do”. So you just end up thinking, “The whole Bill is telling companies that they’re going to be compelled to act in relation to harm and safety, but not on freedom of expression”. What that means is that you feel all the time as though the Government are saying that they are outsourcing this to third parties, which means that you cannot hold anyone to account.
Civil liberties campaigner Guy Herbert compared this to what is happening with the banks at the moment; they are being blamed by the Government and held to account for things such as politically exposed people and Ts and Cs that overconcentrate on values such as EDI and ESG that may be leading to citizens of this country having their bank accounts closed down. The Government say that they will tell the regulator that it has to act and say that the banks cannot behave in this way, but this all came from legislation—it is not as though the regulator was doing it off its own bat. Maybe it overinterpreted the legislation and the banks then overinterpreted it again and overremoved.
The obvious analogy for me is that there is a danger here that we will not be able to hold anyone to account for overremoval of legitimate democratic discussion from the online world, because everyone is pointing the finger at everyone else. At the very least, the amendments are trying to say that any changes beyond what we have discussed so far on this Bill must come before Parliament. That is very important for any kind of democratic credibility to be attached to this legislation.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I too express my admiration to the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, for her work on this group with the Minister and support the amendments in her name. To pick up on what the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, said about infinite ping-pong, it can be used not only to avoid making a decision but as a form of power and of default decision-making—if you cannot get the information back, you are where you are. That is a particularly important point and I add my voice to those who have supported it.
I have a slight concern that I want to raise in public, so that I have said it once, and get some reassurance from the Minister. New subsection (B1)(d) in Amendment 134 concerns the Secretary of State directing Ofcom to change codes that may affect
“relations with the government of a country outside the United Kingdom”.
Many of the companies that will be regulated sit in America, which has been very forceful about protecting its sector. Without expanding on this too much, when it was suggested that senior managers would face some sort of liability in international fora, various parts of the American Government and state apparatus certainly made their feelings clearly known.
I am sure that the channels between our Government and the US are much more straightforward than any that I have witnessed, but it is absolutely definite that more than one Member of your Lordships’ House was approached about the senior management and said, “This is a worry to us”. I believe that where we have landed is very good, but I would like the Minister to say what the limits of that power are and acknowledge that it could get in a bit of a muddle with the economic outcomes that we were talking about, celebrating that they had been taken off the list, and government relations. That was the thing that slightly worried me in the government amendments, which, in all other ways, I welcome.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, this has been a consistent theme ever since the Joint Committee’s report. It was reported on by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and the Digital and Communications Committee, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, has rightly taken up the issue. Seeing some movement from the Minister, particularly on Clause 29 and specifically in terms of Amendments 134 to 137, is very welcome and consistent with some of the concerns that have been raised by noble Lords.
There are still questions to answer about Amendment 138, which my noble friend has raised. I have also signed the amendments to Clause 38 because I think the timetabling is extremely welcome. However, like other noble Lords, I believe we need to have Amendments 139, 140, 144 and 145 in place, as proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston. The phrase “infinite ping-pong” makes us all sink in gloom, in current circumstances—it is a very powerful phrase. I think the Minister really does have to come back with something better; I hope he will give us that assurance, and that his discussions with the noble Baroness Stowell will bear further fruit.
I may not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, about the Clause 39 issues, but I am glad he raised issues relating to Clause 159. It is notable that of all the recommendations by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, the Government accepted four out of five but did not accept the one related to what is now Clause 159. I have deliberately de-grouped the questions of whether Clauses 158 and 159 should stand part of the Bill, so I am going to pose a few questions which I hope, when we get to the second group which contains my clause stand part proposition, the Minister will be able to tell me effortlessly what he is going to do. This will prevent me from putting down further amendments on those clauses, because it seems to me that the Government are being extraordinarily inconsistent in terms of how they are dealing with Clauses 158 and 159 compared with how they have amended Clause 39.
For instance, Clause 158 allows the Secretary of State to issue a direction to Ofcom, where the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for believing that there is a threat to public health and safety or national security, and they can direct Ofcom to set objectives in how they use their media-literacy powers in Section 11 of the Communications Act for a specific period to address the threat, and make Ofcom issue a public-statement notice. That is rather extraordinary. I will not go into great detail at this stage, and I hope the Minister can avoid me having to make a long speech further down the track, but the Government should not be in a position to be able to direct a media regulator on a matter of content. For instance, the Secretary of State has no powers over Ofcom on the content of broadcast regulation—indeed, they have limited powers to direct over radio spectrum and wires—and there is no provision for parliamentary involvement, although I accept that the Secretary of State must publish reasons for the direction. There is also the general question of whether the threshold is high enough to justify this kind of interference. So Clause 158 is not good news at all. It raises a number of questions which I hope the Minister will start to answer today, and maybe we can avoid a great debate further down the track.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, first, I have to say that, having read Hansard from last Thursday, I feel I should have drawn attention to my interests in the register that relate to the Jewish community. I apologise for not doing so at the time and am pleased to now put this on the record.
I will be brief, as noble Lords have already raised a number of very pertinent points, to which I know the Minister will want to respond. In this group of amendments, there is a very welcome focus on transparency, accountability and the role of Parliament, all of which are absolutely crucial to the success of the Bill. I am grateful to the Minister for his introduction and explanation of the impact of the proposed changes to the role of the Secretary of State and Ofcom, whose codes of practice will be, as the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, said, vitally important to the Bill. We very much welcome the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, which identify the requirements of the Secretary of State. We also welcome the government amendments, which along with the amendments by the noble Baroness, have been signed by my noble friend Lord Stevenson.
The amendments tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, raise interesting points about the requirement to use the affirmative procedure, among other points. I look forward to the Minister’s response to that and other amendments. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister his thoughts on arrangements for post-legislative scrutiny. It would also be helpful to deliberations to understand whether there have been discussions on this between the usual channels.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, this is indeed an apposite day to be discussing ongoing ping-pong. I am very happy to speak enthusiastically and more slowly about my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston’s Amendments 139 and 140. We are happy to support those, subject to some tidying up at Third Reading. We agree with the points that she has made and are keen to bring something forward which would mean broadly that a statement would be laid before Parliament when the power to direct had been used. My noble friend Lady Harding characterised them as the infinite ping-pong question and the secretive ping-pong question; I hope that deals with the secretive ping-pong point.
My noble friend Lady Stowell’s other amendments focus on the infinite ping-pong question, and the power to direct Ofcom to modify a code. Her Amendments 139, 140, 144 and 145 seek to address those concerns: that the Secretary of State could enter into a private form of ping-pong with Ofcom, making an unlimited number of directions on a code to prevent it from ever coming before Parliament. Let me first be clear that we do not foresee that happening. As the amendments I have spoken to today show, the power can be used only when specific exceptional reasons apply. In that sense, we agree with the intent of the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Stowell. However, we cannot accept them as drafted because they rely on concepts— such as the “objective” of a direction—which are not consistent with the procedure for making a direction set out in the Bill.
The amendments I have brought forward mean that private ping-pong between the Secretary of State and Ofcom on a code is very unlikely to happen. Let me set out for my noble friend and other noble Lords why that is. The Secretary of State would need exceptional reasons for making any direction, and the Bill then requires that the code be laid before Parliament as soon as is reasonably practicable once the Secretary of State is satisfied that no further modifications to the draft are required. That does not leave room for the power to be used inappropriately. A code could be delayed in this way and in the way that noble Lords have set out only if the Secretary of State could show that there remained exceptional reasons once a code had been modified. This test, which is a very high bar, would need to be met each time. Under the amendments in my name, Parliament would also be made aware straightaway each time a direction was made, and when the modified code came before Parliament, it would now come under greater scrutiny using the affirmative procedure.
I certainly agree with the points that the noble Lord, Lord Allan, and others made that any directions should be made in as transparent a way as possible, which is why we have tabled these amendments. There may be some circumstances where the Secretary of State has access to information—for example, from the security services—the disclosure of which would have an adverse effect on national security. In our amendments, we have sought to retain the existing provisions in the Bill to make sure that we strike the right balance between transparency and protecting national security.
As the noble Lord mentioned, the Freedom of Information Act provides an additional route to transparency while also containing existing safeguards in relation to national security and other important areas. He asked me to think of an example of something that would be exceptional but not require that level of secrecy. By dropping economic policy and burden to business, I would point him to an example in those areas, but a concrete example evades me this afternoon. Those are the areas to which I would turn his attention.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
Can the Minister confirm that the fact that a direction has been made will always be known to the public, even if the substance of it is not because it is withheld under the secrecy provision? In other words, will the public always have a before and after knowledge of the fact of the direction, even if its substance is absent?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Yes; that is right.
I hope noble Lords will agree that the changes we have made and that I have outlined today as a package mean that we have reached the right balance in this area. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Stowell —who I see wants to come in—for the time that she too has given this issue, along with members of her committee.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for his constructive response to my Amendments 139 and 140. I am sure he will do me the honour of allowing me to see the Government’s reversioning of my amendments before they are laid so that we can be confident at Third Reading that they are absolutely in line with expectations.
Could I press my noble friend a little further on Amendments 144 and 145? As I understood what he said, the objection from within government is to the language in the amendments I have tabled—although as my noble friend Lady Harding said, they are incredibly modest in their nature.
I was not sure whether my noble friend was saying in his defence against accepting them that issuing a direction would have to be exceptional, and that that led to a need to clarify that this would be ongoing. Would each time there is a ping or a pong be exceptional? Forgive me, because it starts to sound a bit ridiculous when we get into this amount of detail, but it seems to me that the “exceptional” issue kicks in at the point where you issue the direction. Once you engage in a dialogue, “exceptional” is no longer really the issue. It is an odd defence against trying to limit the number of times you allow that dialogue to continue. Bearing in mind that he is willing to look again at Amendments 139 and 140, I wonder whether, between now and Third Reading, he would at least ask parliamentary counsel to look again at the language in my original amendment.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am certainly happy to commit to showing my noble friend the tidying up we think necessary of the two amendments I said we are happy to accept ahead of Third Reading. On the others, as I said, the code could be delayed repeatedly only if the Secretary of State showed that there remained exceptional reasons once it had been modified, and that high bar would need to be met each time. So we do not agree with her Amendments 14 and 145 because of concerns about the drafting of my noble friend’s current amendment and because the government amendments we have brought forward cater for the scenario about which she is concerned. Her amendments would place a constraint on the Secretary of State not to give more directions than are necessary to achieve the objectives set out in the original direction, but they would not achieve the intent I think my noble friend has. The Bill does not require the direction to have a particular objective. Directions are made because the Secretary of State believes that modifications are necessary for exceptional reasons, and the direction must set out the reasons why the Secretary of State believes that a draft should be modified.
Through the amendments the Government have laid today, the direction would have to be for exceptional reasons relating to a narrower list and Parliament would be made aware each time a direction was made. Parliament would also have increased scrutiny in cases where a direction had been made under Clause 39(1)(a), because of the affirmative procedure. However, I am very happy to keep talking to my noble friend, as we will be on the other amendments, so we can carry on our conversation then if she wishes.
Let me say a bit about the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Moylan. His Amendment 218 would require the draft statement of strategic priorities laid before Parliament to be approved by resolution of each House. As we discussed in Committee, the statement of strategic priorities is necessary because future technological changes are likely to shape harms online, and the Government must have an avenue through which to state their strategic priorities in relation to these emerging technologies.
The Bill already requires the Secretary of State to consult Ofcom and other appropriate persons when preparing a statement. This provides an opportunity for consideration and scrutiny of a draft statement, including, for example, by committees of Parliament. This process, combined with the negative procedure, provides an appropriate level of scrutiny and is in line with comparable existing arrangements in the Communications Act in relation to telecommunications, the management of radio spectrum and postal services.
My noble friend’s other amendments would place additional requirements on the Secretary of State’s power to issue non-binding guidance to Ofcom about the exercise of its online safety functions. The guidance document itself does not create any statutory requirements —Ofcom is required only to have regard to the guidance —and on that basis, we do not agree that it is necessary to subject it to parliamentary approval as a piece of secondary legislation. As my noble friend Lady Harding of Winscombe pointed out, we do not require that in numerous other areas of the economy, and we do not think it necessary here.
Let me reassure my noble friend Lord Moylan on the many ways in which Parliament will be able to scrutinise the work of Ofcom. Like most other regulators, it is accountable to Parliament in how it exercises its functions. The Secretary of State is required to present its annual report and accounts before both Houses. Ministers from the devolved Administrations must also lay a copy of the report before their respective Parliament or Assembly. Ofcom’s officers can be required to appear before Select Committees to answer questions about its work; indeed, its chairman and chief executive appeared before your Lordships’ Communications and Digital Committee just yesterday. Parliament will also have a role in approving a number of aspects of the regulatory framework through its scrutiny of both primary and secondary legislation.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the key question is this: why have these powers over social media when the Secretary of State does not have them over broadcast?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
If I may, I will write to the noble Lord having reflected on that question further. We are talking here about the provisions set up in the Bill to deal with online harms; clearly, that is the focus here, which is why this Bill deals with that. I will speak to colleagues who look at other areas and respond further to the noble Lord’s question.
Let me reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that, through this Bill, both Ofcom and providers are being asked to have regard to freedom of expression. Ofcom already has obligations under the Human Rights Act to be bound by the European Convention on Human Rights, including Article 10 rights relating to freedom of expression. Through this Bill, user-to-user and search services will have to consider and implement safeguards for freedom of expression when fulfilling their duties. Those points are uppermost in our minds.
I am grateful for the support expressed by noble Lords for the government amendments in this group. Given the mixed messages of support and the continued work with my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston, I urge her not to move her amendments.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment inserting new subsections (9) to (13) into this Clause in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment inserting new subsections (9) to (13) into this Clause in my name.
“(9) Subsection (11) applies to—(a) a draft of the first code of practice prepared under section 36(1) (terrorism code of practice);(b) a draft of the first code of practice prepared under section 36(2) (CSEA code of practice);(c) a draft of the first code of practice prepared under section 36(3) relating to a duty set out in section 9 or 23 (illegal content);(d) a draft of the first code of practice prepared under section 36(3) relating to a duty set out in section 11 or 25 (children’s online safety);(e) a draft of the first code of practice prepared under section 36(3) relating to a duty set out in section 16 or 26 (content reporting);(f) a draft of the first code of practice prepared under section 36(3) relating to—(i) a duty set out in section 17 (complaints procedures) that concerns complaints of a kind mentioned in subsection (4) or (5) of that section, or(ii) a duty set out in section 27 (complaints procedures).(10) For the purposes of paragraphs (c) to (f) of subsection (9) a draft of a code of practice is a draft of the first code of practice relating to a duty if—(a) it describes measures recommended for the purpose of compliance with the duty, and(b) it is a draft of the first code of practice prepared under section 36(3) that describes measures for that purpose.(11) OFCOM must submit a draft to which this subsection applies to the Secretary of State under subsection (1) within the period of 18 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.(12) If OFCOM consider that it is necessary to extend the period mentioned in subsection (11) in relation to a draft mentioned in any of paragraphs (a) to (f) of subsection (9), OFCOM may extend the period in relation to that draft by up to 12 months by making and publishing a statement.But this is subject to subsection (15).(13) A statement under subsection (12) must set out—(a) the reasons why OFCOM consider that it is necessary to extend the period mentioned in subsection (11) in relation to the draft concerned, and(b) the period of extension.(14) A statement under subsection (12) may be published at the same time as (or incorporate) a statement under section (Time for publishing first guidance under certain provisions of this Act)(3) (extension of time to prepare certain guidance).(15) But a statement under subsection (12) may not be made in relation to a draft mentioned in a particular paragraph of subsection (9) if—(a) a statement has previously been made under subsection (12) (whether in relation to a draft mentioned in the same or a different paragraph of subsection (9)), or(b) a statement has previously been made under section (Time for publishing first guidance under certain provisions of this Act)(3).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that OFCOM must prepare the first draft of certain codes of practice within 18 months of Royal Assent, unless they consider a longer period to be necessary in which case OFCOM may (on one occasion only) extend the period and set out why in a published statement.
“(A1) The Secretary of State may direct OFCOM to modify a draft of a code of practice submitted under section 38(1) if the Secretary of State believes that modifications are required for the purpose of securing compliance with an international obligation of the United Kingdom.(B1) The Secretary of State may direct OFCOM to modify a draft of a code of practice, other than a terrorism or CSEA code of practice, submitted under section 38(1) if the Secretary of State believes that modifications are required for exceptional reasons relating to—(a) national security,(b) public safety,(c) public health, or(d) relations with the government of a country outside the United Kingdom.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment (together with other amendments to this Clause in my name) sets out the circumstances in which the Secretary of State can direct OFCOM to modify a draft of a code of practice.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the other amendments to this Clause in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the ability of the Secretary of State to direct OFCOM to modify a draft of a code of practice for public policy reasons.
“(b) for exceptional reasons relating to public health or relations with the government of a country outside the United Kingdom.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment (together with other amendments to this Clause in my name) sets out the circumstances in which the Secretary of State can direct OFCOM to modify a draft of a code of practice.
(c) must be published, except where the Secretary of State considers that doing so would have the effect mentioned in paragraph (b).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires a direction given under Clause 39 to be published except in cases where the Secretary of State considers that to do so would be against the interests of national security, public safety or relations with the government of a country outside the United Kingdom.
“(ca) publish the document, and”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires OFCOM to publish a document submitted to the Secretary of State in response the Secretary of State giving a direction under this Clause.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the other amendments to this Clause in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendments made to Clause 39 in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendments made to Clause 39 in my name.
“(A1) OFCOM must produce guidance for providers of Category 1 services to assist them in complying with their duties set out in section (Assessment duties: user empowerment) (assessments related to the adult user empowerment duty set out in section 12(2)).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires OFCOM to produce guidance to assist providers of Category 1 services in carrying out their assessments as required by the new Clause proposed after Clause 11 in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires OFCOM to consult the Information Commissioner before producing guidance mentioned in the preceding amendment in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the splitting up of Clause 12 into two Clauses.
“OFCOM’s guidance about protecting women and girls
(1) OFCOM must produce guidance for providers of Part 3 services which focuses on content and activity—(a) in relation to which such providers have duties set out in this Part or Part 4, and(b) which disproportionately affects women and girls.(2) The guidance may, among other things—(a) contain advice and examples of best practice for assessing risks of harm to women and girls from content and activity mentioned in subsection (1), and for reducing such risks;(b) refer to provisions contained in a code of practice under section 36 which are particularly relevant to the protection of women and girls from such content and activity.(3) Before producing the guidance (including revised or replacement guidance), OFCOM must consult—(a) the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses,(b) the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, and(c) such other persons as OFCOM consider appropriate.(4) OFCOM must publish the guidance (and any revised or replacement guidance).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause requires OFCOM to produce and publish a guidance document focusing on online content and activity which disproportionately affects women and girls.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, as we discussed in Committee, the Bill contains strong protection for women and girls and places duties on services to tackle and limit the kinds of offences and online abuse that we know disproportionately affect them. His Majesty’s Government are committed to ensuring that women and girls are protected online as well as offline. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes for the thoughtful and constructive way in which she has approached ensuring that the provisions in the Bill are as robust as possible.
It is with my noble friend’s support that I am therefore pleased to move government Amendment 152. This will create a new clause requiring Ofcom to produce guidance that summarises, in one clear place, measures that can be taken to tackle the abuse that women and girls disproportionately face online. This guidance will relate to regulated user-to-user and search services and will cover content regulated under the Bill’s frame- work. Crucially, it will summarise the measures in the Clause 36 codes for Part 3 duties, namely the illegal and child safety duties. It will also include a summary of platforms’ relevant Part 4 duties—for example, relevant terms of service and reporting provisions. This will provide a one-stop shop for providers.
Providers that adhere to the codes of practice will continue to be compliant with the duties. However, this guidance will ensure that it is easy and clear for platforms to implement holistic and effective protections for women and girls across their various duties. Any company that says it is serious about protecting women and girls online will, I am sure, refer to this guidance when implementing protections for its users.
Ofcom will have the flexibility to shape the guidance in a way it deems most effective in protecting women and girls online. However, as outlined in this amendment, we expect that it will include examples of best practice for assessing risks of harm to women and girls from content and activity, and how providers can reduce these risks and emphasise provisions in the codes of practice that are particularly relevant to the protection of women and girls.
To ensure that this guidance is effective and makes a difference, the amendment creates a requirement on Ofcom to consult the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and the Victims’ Commissioner, among other people or organisations it considers appropriate, when it creates this guidance. Much like the codes of practice, this will ensure that the views and voices of experts on the issue, and of women, girls and victims, are reflected. This amendment will also require Ofcom to publish this guidance.
I am grateful to all the organisations that have worked with us and with my noble friend Lady Morgan to get to this point. I hope your Lordships will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to this amendment; I know that the House is keen to get on to other business today. I very much welcome the amendment that the Government have tabled. My noble friend the Minister has always said that they want to keep women and girls safe online. As has been referred to elsewhere, the importance of making our digital streets safer cannot be overestimated.
As my noble friend said, women and girls experience a disproportionate level of abuse online. That is now recognised in this amendment, although this is only the start, not the end, of the matter. I thank my noble friend and the Secretary of State for their engagement on this issue. I thank the chief executive and the chair of Ofcom. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, who I know cannot be here today, and the noble Lord, Lord Knight, who signed the original amendment that we discussed in Committee.
My noble friend has already talked about the campaigners outside the Chamber who wanted there to be specific mention of women and girls in the Bill. I thank Refuge, the 100,000 people who signed the End Violence Against Women coalition’s petition, BT, Glitch, Carnegie UK, Professor Lorna Woods, the NSPCC and many others who made the case for this amendment.
As my noble friend said, this is Ofcom guidance. It is not necessarily a code of practice, but it is still very welcome because it is broader than just the specific offences that the Government have legislated on, which I also welcome. As he said, this puts all the things that companies, platforms and search engines should be doing to protect women and girls online in one specific place. My noble friend mentioned holistic protection, which is very important.
There is no offline/online distinction these days. Women and girls should feel safe everywhere. I also want to say, because I know that my noble friend has had a letter, that this is not about saying that men and boys should not be safe online; it is about recognising the disproportionate levels of abuse that women and girls suffer.
I welcome the fact that, in producing this guidance, Ofcom will have to consult with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and the Victims’ Commissioner and more widely. I look forward, as I am sure do all the organisations I just mentioned, to working with Ofcom on the first set of guidance that it will produce. It gives me great pleasure to have signed the amendment and to support its introduction.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I know that we do not have long and I do not want to be churlish. I am not that keen on this amendment, but I want to ask a question in relation to it.
I am concerned that there should be no conflation in the best practice guidance between the actual, practical problems of, for example, victims of domestic abuse being stalked online, which is a threat to their safety, or threatened with physical violence—I understand that—and abuse. Abuse is horrible to be on the receiving end of, but it is important for freedom of thought and freedom of speech that we do not make no distinction between words and action. It is important not to overreact or frighten young women by saying that being shouted at is the same as being physically abused.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, to welcome the government amendment and to say that this is a moment of delight for many girls—of all varieties. I echo the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on the issue of having a broad consultation, which is a good idea. While our focus during the passage of this Bill was necessarily on preventing harm, I hope this guidance will be part of the rather more aspirational and exciting part of the digital world that allows young people to participate in social and civic life in ways that do not tolerate abuse and harm on the basis of their gender. In Committee, I said that we have a duty not to allow digital tech to be regressive for girls. I hope that this is a first step.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of my party, all the groups mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and potentially millions of women and girls in this country, I briefly express my appreciation for this government amendment. In Committee, many of us argued that a gender-neutral Bill would not achieve strong enough protection for women and girls as it would fail to recognise the gendered nature of online abuse. The Minister listened, as he has on many occasions during the passage of the Bill. We still have differences on some issues—cyberflashing, for instance—but in this instance I am delighted that he is amending the Bill, and I welcome it.
Why will Ofcom be required to produce guidance and not a code, as in the amendment originally tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan? Is there a difference, or is it a case of a rose by any other name? Is there a timescale by which Ofcom should produce this guidance? Are there any plans to review Ofcom’s guidance once produced, just to see how well it is working?
We all want the same thing: for women and girls to be free to express themselves online and not to be harassed, abused and threatened as they are today.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, this very positive government amendment acknowledges that there is not equality when it comes to online abuse. We know that women are 27 times more likely than men to be harassed online, that two-thirds of women who report abuse to internet companies do not feel heard, and three out of four women change their behaviour after receiving online abuse.
Like others, I am very glad to have added my name to support this amendment. I thank the Minister for bringing it before your Lordships’ House and for his introduction. It will place a requirement on Ofcom to produce and publish guidance for providers of Part 3 services in order to make online spaces safer for women and girls. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, has said, while this is not a code of practice—and I will be interested in the distinction between the code of practice that was being called for and what we are expecting now—it would be helpful perhaps to know when we might expect to see it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, just asked, what kind of timescale is applicable?
This is very much a significant step for women and girls, who deserve and seek specific protections because of the disproportionate amount of abuse received. It is crucial that the guidance take a holistic approach which focuses on prevention and tech accountability, and that it is as robust as possible. Can the Minister say whether he will be looking to the model of the Violence against Women and Girls Code of Practice, which has been jointly developed by a number of groups and individuals including Glitch, the NSPCC, 5Rights and Refuge? It is important that this be got right, that we see it as soon as possible and that all the benefits can be felt and seen.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am very grateful to everyone for the support they have expressed for this amendment both in the debate now and by adding their names to it. As I said, I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lady Morgan, with whom we have worked closely on it. I am also grateful for her recognition that men and boys also face harm online, as she rightly points out. As we discussed in Committee, this Bill seeks to address harms for all users but we recognise that women and girls disproportionately face harm online. As we have discussed with the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, women and girls with other characteristics such as women of colour, disabled women, Jewish women and many others face further disproportionate harm and abuse. I hope that Amendment 152 demonstrates our commitment to giving them the protection they need, making it easy and clear for platforms to implement protections for them across all the wide-ranging duties they have.
The noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, asked why it was guidance and not a code of practice. Ofcom’s codes of practice will set out how companies can comply with the duties and will cover how companies should tackle the systemic risks facing women and girls online. Stipulating that Ofcom must produce specific codes for multiple different issues could, as we discussed in Committee, create duplication between the codes, causing confusion for companies and for Ofcom.
As Ofcom said in its letter to your Lordships ahead of Report, it has already started the preparatory work on the draft illegal content and child sexual abuse and exploitation codes. If it were required to create a separate code relating to violence against women and girls, this preparatory work would need to be revised, so there would be the unintended—and, I think, across the House, undesired—consequence of slowing down the implementation of these vital protections. I am grateful for the recognition that we and Ofcom have had on that point.
Instead, government Amendment 152 will consolidate all the relevant measures across codes of practice, such as on illegal content, child safety and user empowerment, in one place, assisting platforms to reduce the risk of harm that women and girls disproportionately face.
On timing, at present Ofcom expects that this guidance will be published in phase 3 of the implementation of the Bill, which was set out in Ofcom’s implementation plan of 15 June. This is when the duties in Part 4 of the Bill, relating to terms of service and so on, will be implemented. The guidance covers the duties in Part 4, so for guidance to be comprehensive and have the most impact in protecting women and girls, it is appropriate for it to be published during phase 3 of the Bill’s implementation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, mentioned the rights of trans people and the rights of people to express their views. As she knows, gender reassignment and religious or philosophical belief are both protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. Sometimes those are in tension, but they are both protected in the law.
With gratitude to all the noble Lords who have expressed their support for it, I commend the amendment to the House.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
The Minister did not quite grasp what I said but I will not keep the House. Would he be prepared to accept recommendations for a broader consultation—or who do I address them to? It is important that groups such as the Women’s Rights Network and others, which suffer abuse because they say “I know what a woman is”, are talked to in a discussion on women and abuse, because that would be appropriate.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am sorry—yes, the noble Baroness made a further point on consultation. I want to reassure her and other noble Lords that Ofcom has the discretion to consult whatever body it considers appropriate, alongside the Victims’ Commissioner, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and others who I mentioned. Those consultees may not all agree. It is important that Ofcom takes a range of views but is able to consult whomever. As I mentioned previously, Ofcom and its officers can be scrutinised in Parliament through Select Committees and in other ways. The noble Baroness could take it up directly with them but could avail herself of those routes for parliamentary scrutiny if she felt that her pleas were falling on deaf ears.
Lord Clement-Jones
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe whether the bill sufficiently covers certain harmful content users may encounter in services, for example in the metaverse.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, we had a pretty extensive future-proofing debate in Committee, which I was sadly unable to take part in, but I start this debate with a sinking feeling about the scope of the Bill. This amendment relates to the metaverse in particular.
In metaverse or game-type settings, users interact in a visual or audio environment that is wholly or in part created by the service provider. An analogy might be that the service provider supplies an immersive stage environment for people to act upon, complete with scenery, computer-generated props and characters, some of which could be harmful. The environment created or enabled by the service provider could itself be harmful to children and even adults—for instance, a World War II concentration camp, a sex shop or a Ku Klux Klan rally; at least one online game has allowed people to play the role of an Auschwitz camp guard.
I am particularly influenced by a report from the Center for Countering Digital Hate, Horizon Worlds Exposed, and the research for it, which was carried out by the online CSEA covert intelligence team. This may have been cited earlier but they found that minors are routinely harassed and exposed to adult content on Meta’s flagship virtual reality social network, Horizon Worlds. The research follows Meta’s announcements that Horizon Worlds would be opening up to 13 to 17 year-olds, showing that it is already failing to prevent minors accessing mature content, despite a supposed ban on them accessing its VR applications.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for tabling the amendment. If I had been quicker, I would have added my name to it, because he may— I use the word “may” advisedly, because I am not sure—have identified quite a serious gap in terms of future-proofing. As far as I understand it, in a somewhat naive way, the amendment probes whether there is a gap between provider-generated content and user-generated content and whether provider-generated content could lead to a whole lot of ghastly stuff on the metaverse without any way of tackling it because it is deemed to have fallen outside the scope of the Bill.
I am grateful to Carnegie UK for having tried to talk me through this—it is pretty complicated. As a specific example, I understand that a “Decentraland” avatar pops up on gaming sites, and it is useful because it warns you about the dangers of gambling and what it can lead to. But then there is the problem about the backdrop to this avatar: at the moment, it seems to be against gambling, but you can see how those who have an interest in gambling would be quite happy to have the avatar look pretty hideous but have a backdrop of a really enticing casino with lots of lights and people streaming in, or whatever. I am not sure where that would fit, because it seems that this type of content would be provider-generated. When it comes to the metaverse and these new ways of interacting with 3D immersion, I am not clear that we have adequately caught within the Bill some of these potentially dangerous applications. So I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify it for us today and, if not, possibly to write between now and the next time that we debate this, because I have an amendment on future-proofing, but it is in a subsequent group.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I am interested to hear what the Minister says, but could he also explain to the House the difference in status of this sort of material in Part 5 versus Part 3? I believe that the Government brought in a lot of amendments that sorted it out and that many of us hoped were for the entire Bill, although we discovered, somewhat to our surprise, that they were only in Part 5. I would be interested if the Minister could expand on that.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for raising this; it is important. Clause 49(3)(a)(i) mentions content
“generated directly on the service by a user”,
which, to me, implies that it would include the actions of another user in the metaverse. Sub-paragraph (ii) mentions content
“uploaded to or shared on the service by a user”,
which covers bots or other quasi-autonomous virtual characters in the metaverse. As we heard, a question remains about whether any characters or objects provided by the service itself are covered.
A scenario—in my imagination anyway—would be walking into an empty virtual bar at the start of a metaverse service. This would be unlikely to be engaging: the attractions of indulging in a lonely, morose drink at that virtual bar are limited. The provider may therefore reasonably configure the algorithm to generate characters and objects that are engaging until enough users then populate the service to make it interesting.
Of course, there is the much more straightforward question of gaming platforms. On Monday, I mentioned “Grand Theft Auto”, a game with an advisory age of 17—they are still children at that age—but that is routinely accessed by younger children. Shockingly, an article that I read claimed that it can evolve into a pornographic experience, where the player becomes the character from a first-person angle and received services from virtual sex workers, as part of the game design. So my question to the Minister is: does the Bill protect the user from these virtual characters interacting with users in virtual worlds?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I will begin with that. The metaverse is in scope of the Bill, which, as noble Lords know, has been designed to be technology neutral and future-proofed to ensure that it keeps pace with emerging technologies—we have indeed come a long way since the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, the noble Lords opposite and many others sat on the pre-legislative scrutiny committee for the Bill. Even as we debate, we envisage future technologies that may come. But the metaverse is in scope.
The Bill will apply to companies that enable users to share content online or to interact with each other, as well as search services. That includes a broad range of services, such as websites, applications, social media services, video games and virtual reality spaces, including the metaverse.
Any service that enables users to interact, as the metaverse does, will need to conduct a child access test and will need to comply with the child safety duties—if it is likely to be accessed by children. Content is broadly defined in the Bill as,
“anything communicated by means of an internet service”.
Where this is uploaded, shared or directly generated on a service by a user and able to be encountered by other users, it will be classed as user-generated content. In the metaverse, this could therefore include things like objects or avatars created by users. It would also include interactions between users in the metaverse such as chat—both text and audio—as well as images, uploaded or created by a user.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I hope I am not interrupting the Minister in full flow. He has talked about users entirely. He has not yet got to talking about what happens where the provider is providing that environment—in exactly the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Knight, illustrated.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We talked about bots controlled by service providers before the noble Lord, Lord Knight, asked questions on this. The Bill is designed to make online service providers responsible for the safety of their users in light of harmful activities that their platforms might facilitate. Providers of a user-to-user service will need to adhere to their duties of care, which apply to all user-generated content present on their service. The Bill does not, however, regulate content published by user-to-user providers themselves. That is because the providers are liable for the content they publish on the service themselves. The one exception to this—as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, alluded to in her contribution—is pornography, which poses a particular risk to children and is regulated by Part 5 of the Bill.
I am pleased to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Clement- Jones, that the Bill—
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. The Minister just said that private providers will be responsible for their content. I would love to understand what mechanism makes a provider responsible for their content?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I will write to noble Lords with further information and will make sure that I have picked up correctly the questions that they have asked.
On Amendment 152A, which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has tabled, I am pleased to assure him that the Bill already achieves the intention of the amendment, which seeks to add characters and objects that might interact with users in the virtual world to the Bill’s definition of user-generated content. Let me be clear again: the Bill already captures any service that facilitates online user-to-user interaction, including in the metaverse or other augmented reality or immersive online worlds.
The Bill broadly defines “content” as
“anything communicated by means of an internet service”,
so it already captures the various ways in which users may encounter content. Clause 211 makes clear that “encounter” in relation to content for the purposes of the Bill means to,
“read, view, hear or otherwise experience”
content. That definition extends to the virtual worlds which noble worlds have envisaged in their contributions. It is broad enough to encompass any way of encountering content, whether that be audio-visually or through online avatars or objects.
In addition, under the Bill’s definition of “functionality”,
“any feature that enables interactions of any description between users of the service”
will be captured. That could include interaction between avatars or interaction by means of an object in a virtual world. All in-scope services must therefore consider a range of functionalities as part of their risk assessment and must put in place any necessary measures to mitigate and manage any risks that they identify.
I hope that that provides some assurance to the noble Lord that the concerns that he has raised are covered, but I shall happily write on his further questions before we reach the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, rightly flagged in her contribution.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I thank the Minister. I feel that we have been slightly unfair because we have been asking questions about an amendment that we have not been able to table. The Minister has perfectly well answered the actual amendment itself and has given a very positive reply—and in a sense I expected him to say what he said about the actual amendment. But, of course, the real question is about an amendment that I was unable to table.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and the next two amendments in my name, make it clear that an automated tool which is not a bot - as well as a bot - may be regarded as a user for the purposes of the definition of “user-generated content”.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to the preceding amendment in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to the first amendment of this Clause in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures consistency of language in referring to kinds of content.
(a) software or an automated tool or algorithm applied by the provider or by a person acting on behalf of the provider, or(b) an automated tool or algorithm made available on the service by the provider or by a person acting on behalf of the provider.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is about what counts as “provider content” for the purposes of the exemption in Clause 49(6) of the Bill (which provides that comments/reviews on provider content don’t count as regulated user-generated content). Words are added to expressly cover the case where an automated tool or algorithm is made available on the service by a provider, such as a generative AI bot.
“(ii) is video or audio content that was originally published or broadcast by a recognised news publisher, and is not a clipped or edited form of such content (unless it is the recognised news publisher who has clipped or edited it), or(iii) is a link to an article or item within sub-paragraph (i) or to content within sub-paragraph (ii).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment revises the definition of “news publisher content” so that, in particular, online content published by a recognised news publisher that has not first been broadcast is covered by the definition.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, as noble Lords know, His Majesty’s Government are committed to defending the invaluable role of a free media, and our online safety legislation must protect the vital role of the press in providing people with reliable and accurate information online. That is why we have included strong protections for recognised news publishers in the Bill.
Clause 49(9) and (10) set out what is considered “news publisher content” in relation to a regulated user-to-user service, while Clause 52 sets out that news publishers’ content is exempt from search services’ duties. The government amendments clarify minor elements of these exemptions and definitions. Given the evolving consumption habits for news, recognised news publishers might clip or edit content from their published or broadcast versions to cater to different audiences and platforms. We want to ensure that recognised news publisher content is protected in all its forms, as long as that content is created or generated by the news publishers themselves.
First, our amendments clarify that any video or audio content published or broadcast by recognised news publishers will be exempt from the Bill’s safety duties and will benefit from the news publisher appeals process, when shared on platforms in scope of the Bill. These amendments ensure that old terminology works effectively in the internet age. The amendments now also make it clear that any news publisher content that is clipped or edited by the publisher itself will qualify for the Bill’s protections when shared by third parties on social media. However, these protections will not apply when a third-party user modifies that content itself. This will ensure that the protections do not apply to news publisher content that has been edited by a user in a potentially harmful way.
The amendments make it clear that the Bill’s protections apply to links to any article, video or audio content generated by recognised news publishers, clipped or edited, and regardless of the form in which that content was first published or broadcast. Taken together, these amendments ensure that our online safety legislation protects recognised news publishers’ content as intended. I hope noble Lords will support them. I beg to move.
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 159 and 160 are in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollins and Lady Newlove. First, I apologise for the fact that this is the first time I have spoken on the Bill. That was not the plan: illness intervened. Anyway, I am all better now, thanks.
The purport of the amendments is simple. Content posted on social media by newspapers benefits, under the Bill as it stands, from exemption from any regulatory action by the platforms. Nowhere does the Bill set up a system for the public to complain about such pieces. Newspapers can have any complaints system they want and still benefit from the exemption. Under our amendments, the exemption would apply only to newspapers that have a system for public complaints that meets proper standards—at the very least, the complaints code must be independently set up and not under the control of newspapers, their editors or any puppet regulators they may set up.
Noble Lords will have noticed that the amendments do not say that the system must measure up to the standards required by the Press Recognition Panel and monitored by a body approved by that panel; at the moment, only Impress would qualify. We have omitted that particular way of making sure that the complaints system works not because it would not be perfectly good—it would—but because the very mention of PRP/Impress is a red rag to a bull to those who control the press, so we kept the red rag in our pockets. This, of course, says more about those who control the press than about the admirable PRP/Impress set-up, which has, within its limited practical scope, been doing a very fine job.
What the amendments do mean, however, is that newspapers cannot any more hide behind their fig leaf IPSO, the so-called Independent Press Standards Organisation. I know that some Members of your Lordships’ House are IPSO fans who fought for it tooth and nail; indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, is its chair. I pay tribute to that organisation: the political skills it has deployed in its attempts to give itself credibility have amazed even me, somebody who has been around politics for nearly 50 years. Two former Northern Ireland officials have been hired to produce whitewash reports on it: appointed by IPSO, terms of reference from IPSO and paid for by IPSO. They did their duty. Only last week—perhaps it knew the Bill was coming up in your Lordships’ House—it actually upheld a complaint: that against Jeremy Clarkson for abusing Meghan. That was an event as rare as bumping into a dodo on the streets one night: only three in 1,000 complaints are upheld by IPSO.
A more objective academic view of IPSO than mine was provided by the Media Standards Trust, a study by the academics Martin Moore and Gordon Ramsay published in 2019. It found that IPSO fell short on 25 of 38 Leveson recommendations. I am sorry—we have not heard the word “Leveson” for a while, and I am not sure we are still allowed to utter it, but I will. IPSO has never in its history established a single standards investigation. It has never fined a publisher. It and its editors set the code to suit themselves.
Ever intrepid, I once tried complaining about a case—a slam dunk case, if I may ask the House to take my word for it—against the Express about its use of something it wrongly described as a poll. It was an intriguing experience. IPSO followed the procedural rules minutely and scrupulously, if slowly. The Express obfuscated. Eventually, IPSO produced a ruling that was so bizarre and incomprehensible that I hesitate to describe it to the House and, of course, turned down my complaint. That experience is very typical. Some 1,500 people give up on their complaints every year, despairing of fighting their way through IPSO and the newspapers’ attritional system. The average complaint takes about six months to resolve.
These amendments, partly for the reasons I have already mentioned, do not attempt to specify what body can rule. It could be a body approved by the PRP or one adhering to another kosher code. What should be clear, however, is that the regulator should not be a pussycat regulator controlled by the press, as IPSO is. It should be a genuinely independent regulator with a genuinely independent code to enforce.
“You’re against free speech, Lipsey; you want state regulation”. But there is no inhibition on free speech in our amendments. They merely provide a way of hearing complaints after pieces have been printed, and the state need have nothing to do with it. Incidentally, I find great curiosity in the way in which this state regulation bogey is played about with in this debate. In fact, Ofcom is already a state regulator of many of the things that would be covered by our amendments. Nevertheless, the cry of “state regulation” is obviously red blood that the proponents of total freedom want.
I too want freedom. I spent a third of my working life as a journalist. I was deputy editor of two national newspapers and Bagehot of the Economist. I believe in press freedom to my very core. If I thought for a moment that these amendments in any way threatened press freedom, I would not be proposing them tonight, but I am perfectly certain that they would not. Instead, they would put some inhibition on newspapers planning to abuse often innocent people on their websites; not stopping them saying it but subjecting them to complaints if they do so, which would be independently adjudicated.
I, my co-signatories and my noble friends on the Front Bench are aware that a media Bill is coming up this Session, next Session or sometime sooner or later— I hope sooner, obviously. That will explicitly end the incentives for newspapers to join an independent regulatory system, such as PRP/Impress, by repealing Section 40 of the Act that gives them the incentives to do so. When we last debated these matters, my noble friend Lord Knight on the Front Bench argued that this Bill was not the right way to tackle the complaints problem, and that it could be done under the media Bill. I am pleased to say that my party, the Labour Party, has specifically pledged that it will not repeal Section 40 in any media Bill introduced if and when it takes power. I respect my noble friend Lord Knight’s argument so, for the avoidance of doubt, we shall not seek the opinion of the House on this amendment. But let the press be in no doubt: Parliament remains on the case—sometimes more intently, sometimes less intently; once agreed on the royal charter, but that has gone down the river; but always ready to act if the newspapers defeat the rights of the public to complain.
We will not finish the job tonight, nor with this Bill, but examples of egregious press behaviour continue to mount up. I know that some of them are in the past, and we were all following the recent High Court case, but they still appear to be around. The question will not go away. The Government continue to attempt to curry favour with the press—the Prime Minister even went to a Rupert Murdoch party rather than attend a climate conference—but, at the end of the day, the power of the press is declining. The force of those who argue for a better complaints system multiplies. Sooner or later, something will have to be done.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, my name is also to this amendment. I am moved by a phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, on Monday; he said the passage of this Bill has been a “series of conversations”. So it has been. The way the Minister has engaged with the House on many of the concerns that the Bill tries to cover has been greatly to his credit.
It is somewhat unknown how much the new technologies will impact on our democracy, our privacy and the safety of our children, although they have all been discussed with great thoroughness. That is why the opt-out for recognised news publishers is something of a puzzle, unless you assume that the Government have caved in to pressure from that sector. Why should it be given this opt-out? It is partly because if you ask the press to take responsibility in any way, it becomes like Violet Elizabeth Bott in the Just William stories; it “thkweems and thkweems”—usually led by the noble Lord, Lord Black, whom I am glad to see in his place —and talks about press freedom.
My skin in this game is that I was the Minister in the Lords when the Leveson inquiry was under way and when we took action to try to implement its findings. It is interesting that at that point there was cross-party agreement in both Houses on how to implement them. I advise anybody intending to go into coalitions in future not to take the Conservative Party’s assurances on such matters totally at face value, as that cross-party agreement to implement Leveson was reneged on by the Conservative Party under pressure from the main newspaper publishers.
It was a tragedy, because the “series of conversations” that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, referred to will be ongoing. We will not let the press off the hook, no matter how much it wields its power. It is just over 90 years since Stanley Baldwin’s famous accusation of
“power without responsibility—the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages”.
It is just over 30 years since David Mellor warned the press that it was in the “last chance saloon” and just over 10 years since Rupert Murdoch said that appearing before the Leveson inquiry, with a curious choice of language, was
“the most humble day of my life”.
Of course, like water off a duck’s back, once the pressure was off and the deal had been done with the Conservative Party, we could carry on on our own merry way.
It was a tragedy too because the Leveson settlement—as I think the PRP and Impress have proved—works perfectly well. It is neither state controlled nor an imposition on a free press. Like the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, I greatly resent the idea that this is somehow an attempt to impose on a free press. It is an attempt to get the press to help the whole of our democracy and make things work properly, just as this Bill attempts to do.
Someone mentioned Rupert Murdoch’s recent summer party. The Prime Minister was not the only one who went—so did the leader of the Opposition. I like to think that Mr Attlee would not have gone. I am not sure that my old boss, Jim Callaghan, would have gone. I do not think that either would have flown half way around the world, as Tony Blair did, to treat with him. The truth is that, over the last decade or so, in some ways the situation has got worse. Politicians are more cowed by the press. When I was a Minister and we proposed some reasonably modest piece of radical change, I was told by my Conservative colleague, “We’ll not get that through; the Daily Mail won’t tolerate it”. That pressure on politics means we need politicians with the guts to resist it.
Those who want a genuinely free press would not leave this festering wound. I will not join in the attack on the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, because we worked together very well in coalition. I would prefer to see IPSO reform itself to become Leveson-compliant. That would not bring any of the dangers that we will hear about from the noble Lord, Lord Black, but it would give us a system of press regulation that we could all agree with.
On Section 40, I remember well the discussions about how we would give some incentive to join. A number of my colleagues feel uncomfortable about Section 40 making even the winners pay, but the winner pays only if they are not within a Leveson-compliant system. That was, perhaps innocently, thought of as a carrot to bring the press in, though, of course, it does not read easily. Frankly, if Section 40 were to go but IPSO became Leveson-compliant, that would be a fair deal.
This Bill leaves us with some very dangerous loopholes. Some of the comments underneath in the press and, as the Minister referred to, the newsclips that can be added can be extremely dangerous if children are exposed to them.
There are many other loopholes that this genuflection to press power is going to leave in the Bill and which will lead to problems in the future. Rather than launch another attack—because you can be sure another case will come along or another outrage will happen, and perhaps this time, Parliament will have the guts to deal with it—it would be far better if the media itself saw Leveson for what it was: a masterful, genuine attempt to put a free press within the context of a free society and protect the individuals and institutions in that society in a way that is in all our interests. As the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said, we are not pushing this tonight, but we are not going to go away.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I have been a journalist my whole career and I have great respect for the noble Lords who put their names to Amendments 159 and 160. However, I cannot support another attempt to lever Section 42 of the Crime and Courts Act into the Bill. In Committee I put my name to Amendment 51, which aims to protect journalism in the public interest. It is crucial to support our news outlets, in the interests of democracy and openness. We are in a world where only a few newspapers, such as the New York Times, manage to make a profit from their digital subscribers. I welcome the protection provided by Clause 50; it is much needed.
In the past decade, the declining state of local journalism has meant there is little coverage of magistrates’ courts and council proceedings, the result being that local public servants are no longer held to account. At a national level, newspapers are more and more reluctant to put money into investigations unless they are certain of an outcome, which is rarely the case. Meanwhile, the tech platforms are using newspapers’ contents for free or paying them little money, while disaggregating news content on their websites so the readers do not even know its provenance. I fear that the digital era is putting our legacy media, which has long been a proud centrepiece of our democracy, in great danger. The inclusion of these amendments would mean that all national newspapers and most local media would be excluded from the protections of the clause. The Bill, which is about regulating the digital world, should not be about trying to limit the number of newspapers and news websites covered by the protections of Clause 50; it would threaten democracy at a local and national level.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I am very pleased to say a few words, because I do not want to disappoint my good friend the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who has obviously read the text of my speech before I have even delivered it. I declare my interests as deputy chairman of the Telegraph Media Group and a director of the Regulatory Funding Company, and note my other interests as set out in the register.
It will not come as a surprise that I oppose Amendments 159 and 160. I am not going to detain your Lordships for long; there are other more important things to talk about this evening than this seemingly never-ending issue, about which we had a good discussion in Committee. I am sorry that the two noble Lords were indisposed at that time, and I am glad to see they are back on fighting form. I am dispirited that these amendments surfaced in the first place as I do not think they really have anything to do with online safety and the protection of children. This is a Bill about the platforms, not the press. I will not repeat all the points we discussed at earlier stages. Suffice it to say that, in my view, this is not the time and the place to seek to impose what would be statutory controls on the press, for the first time since that great liberal, John Locke, led the charge for press freedom in 1695 when the Licensing Acts were abolished. Let us be clear: despite what the two noble Lords said, that is what these amendments would do, and I will briefly explain why.
These amendments seek to remove the exemption for news publishers from an onerous statutory regime overseen by Ofcom, which is, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said, a state regulator, unless they are part of an approved regulator. Yet no serious publisher, by which I mean the whole of the national and regional press, as the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, said—including at least 95% of the industry, from the Manchester Evening News to Cosmopolitan magazine—is ever going to join a regulator which is approved by the state. Even that patron saint of press controls, Sir Brian Leveson, conceded that this was a “principled position” for the industry to take. The net effect of these amendments would be, at a stroke, to subject virtually the entire press to state regulation—a momentous act wholly inimical to any definition of press freedom and free speech—and with very little discussion and absolutely no consultation.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare my interest—although I think it has already been declared for me by the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Lipsey—as the chair of the Independent Press Standards Organisation.
We had this debate in Committee, although not with the same actors; I am glad to see both of them now back in their places and restored to health. However, I cannot welcome all the comments they made, particularly not those of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, critical as he was of IPSO. I should tell the House that IPSO is not on the side of the press. It is not on anybody’s side: it is an independent organisation for the regulation of the press that regulates, by circulation, some 95% of both national and regional newspapers.
The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, spoke of how ineffective we were as an organisation and was rather disparaging about the reviews of IPSO’s governance and operations. I ought, at the very least, to maintain a defence of Sir Bill Jeffrey, a very distinguished civil servant in the Ministry of Defence who recently carried out a report on IPSO. I hope that Members of your Lordships’ House, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Lipsey and Lord McNally, will read the report to see in what ways they consider IPSO is still not showing its independence, but I would very much defend Sir Bill Jeffrey’s independence and the way in which he approached the task. I think it unfortunate that he was attacked in the way he was by the noble Lord. I give way.
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
Does the noble Lord agree that a report which gives as part of its evidence conversations with a sample of precisely 12 complainants cannot be taken seriously?
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
The report must be read as a whole. I do not accept at all what the noble Lord has said. It is worth visiting the IPSO website, because he was very disparaging about the number of complaints that were upheld. IPSO is very transparent; its website shows all the decisions that were reached and the way in which they were reached. I invite those who doubt its independence to look at the constituent elements of those who are on the complaints committee and the board, and all the published decisions, in order to decide whether IPSO is indeed in the pockets of the press, which seemed to be the suggestion made by both noble Lords.
Of course, the approved regulator, Impress, has very little work to do. I am sure it does its work highly conscientiously. The code by which it regulates is remarkably similar to the editors’ code, which is produced by the industry, it is true, with contributions from all sorts of people. It varies from year to year. There is very little criticism of the editors’ code. It provides a very sensible and balanced view to make the press accountable, allowing the complaints committee to decide whether there has been a violation of the code.
The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said that at last it has found the press to be in breach of that code in the recent complaint. It was interesting that the complaints body which I chair was alleged to not be independent of the press. It was roundly criticised by the press for coming to that decision—by the Times, the Telegraph and the Daily Mail. At the same time, it is said that the organisation which I chair is not independent. It is of course independent and will continue to be so.
As for Section 40, before I had anything to do with press regulation, I did not like it. As a lawyer, the idea of somebody having a free hit against anybody is unattractive. Whatever you think of press regulation, I do not think that Section 40 should commend itself to anybody. As they have promised for some time, the Government are quite right to include it in the media Bill, which is to come before your Lordships’ House in due course. It has been a sword of Damocles hanging over the industry. It is not helpful, and I hope that it is repealed. I understand that the Labour Party and perhaps the Liberal Democrats will bring back something of that sort. I understand they may be opposing it when it comes into the media Bill, but that is a matter for them in due course.
Of course, the press should be accountable. Of course, it should be properly regulated. The idea of an independent regulator is to provide reassurance that it is being regulated, as opposed to, until this Bill becomes law, social media—which is not regulated—which provides a source for news which is considerably less reliable than all those newspapers which are subject to regulation.
This is not the occasion to go into further debates about Leveson, but it is perhaps worth rereading the Leveson report and the conclusions that Sir Brian reached—which I have done recently. It must be seen, as all reports, as very much of its time. It is particularly interesting to see the extent to which he promoted and advanced the cause of arbitration. Alternative dispute resolution is very much at the centre of what the legal profession as a whole, and Sir Brian Leveson and his committee in particular, advance as a much better way to resolve disputes. There is an arbitration scheme provided by IPSO, as noble Lords and the House may know. Of course, that is an option which we would encourage people to use—consistent with what Sir Brian and his committee recommended. It is not a substitute for going to court, and if people want to, they should be allowed to do so. However, I think there is a case for courts considering having directions whereby, at first, somebody seeking relief in the court should show that they have exhausted alternative remedies, including alternative dispute resolution. I am in favour of that.
On the idea of being Leveson-compliant—I do not think Sir Brian Leveson particularly likes that expression. He made various recommendations, many of which are reflected in what IPSO does now. I understand there is a great deal of history in this debate. I remember the debates myself. No doubt, we will return to them in due course, but I think we should fight today’s battles, and not the battles of 10 years ago or longer. I think the press is much more accountable and responsible than it was. Of course, as parliamentarians, we will carefully watch what the press do and consider carefully whether this exemption is merited. However, I do not think that this amendment is justified and I hope that the Government do not support it.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, I want to bring the tone of the debate down somewhat to talk about government Amendments 158 and 161 in a rather nerdier fashion. I hope that the House will be patient with me as I do that.
The Minister said that these two amendments introduce some “minor changes” that would make the Bill work as intended. I want to explore whether they are rather more significant than the Minister has given them credit for, and whether they may have unintended consequences. As I understand it, the purpose of the amendments is to ensure that all forms of video and audio content, in long form or short form, whether originally broadcast or made exclusively for social media, will now benefit from the news publisher exemptions.
Particularly thinking about this from a social media point of view—the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, just made the point about news publishers such as newspapers—when we have been looking at the Bill and the news publisher exemption, we have been thinking of the BBC and newspapers. We have been thinking a lot less about people who regard themselves to be news publishers but produce things exclusively for social media—often in a clickbait fashion, using a lot of short-form material. As I read these amendments, they are saying very clearly that this kind of material will benefit from the news publisher exemption. That opens up a whole series of questions we must ask ourselves about whether that will have unintended consequences.
Looking at this in the context of what it takes to be registered as a news publisher in Clause 50, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, referred to the fact that there is an intention and a view that Clause 50 should be kept broad so that people can register as news publishers. Clearly, that is good for media diversity, but if we look at those tests, they are tests that I think that a lot of organisations could pass. We must ask ourselves who might try to establish themselves as a recognised news publisher. They would need to have an office in the United Kingdom. They would also need to apply our standards code, but Clause 50(6)(b) says that the standards code can be their own standards code—it does not have to be anyone else’s.
I am not going to get into a debate about who should be the press regulator; that is for other noble Lords. As I read it, these internet services could pass the Clause 50(2) test by establishing the office and meeting a few basic requirements, then under Clause 50(6)(b) say, “I’ve got a standards code. It’s my standards code. I’ve written it—on the back of an envelope but it’s a standards code”. Then we need to think about who might want to take advantage of that material. My reading of the Bill, thinking about intention, is that services such as Breitbart News—which is not my cup of tea, but is a recognised news publisher—would pass the test and would be able to establish themselves as a news publisher in the UK, benefiting from the exemptions. Whether or not I agree with it, I can see that is a reasonable unintended outcome.
My concern is about other services, such as Infowars, which I am sure everybody is familiar with. It is a service that has caused untold harm and has been sued in the US courts for defamation—which is a pretty high bar. Infowars has clearly caused so much harm that it has found itself on the wrong end of defamation lawsuits in the United States. I do not think it should in any way be our intention that a service such as Infowars should be able to benefit from the special privileges granted to news publishers under the legislation. I know that it is hard to draw lines, and I am not expecting the Minister to say at the Dispatch Box exactly where the line should be drawn. However, I think that without citing examples such as that, we risk not testing the legislation to destruction—which is precisely what we should be doing here—and ending up in a scenario where we have created a news publisher exemption that could be taken advantage of by the wrong organisations. Someone has to draw a line and make a classification.
As we create this news publisher exemption, it is incumbent on us to describe it to people out there in vernacular terms they would understand. My understanding is that the BBC, the Daily Mail, Breitbart News—all those are in. We expect them to be able to pass the Clause 50 test and we have no problem with that. Russia Today, Infowars and a whole host of other services that brand themselves news but are incredibly harmful and destructive to society and individuals—we would want them to fail the Clause 50 test.
I hope the Minister will at least acknowledge that there is going to be a challenge around bad services run by bad people claiming to be news publishers under Clause 50. I hope he will agree that it is not our intention to give publisher privileges to services such as Infowars that cause so much harm to society.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am completely opposed to Amendments 159 and 160, but the noble Lords, Lord Faulks and Lord Black, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, have explained the issues perfectly. I am fully in agreement with what they said. I spoke at length in Committee on that very topic. This is a debate we will undoubtedly come back to in the media Bill. I, for one, am extremely disappointed that the Labour Party has said that it will not repeal Section 40. I am sure that these issues will get an airing elsewhere. As this is a speech-limiting piece of legislation, as was admitted earlier this week, I do not want any more speech limiting. I certainly do not want it to be a media freedom-limiting piece of legislation on top of that.
I want to talk mainly about the other amendments, Amendments 158 and 161, but approach them from a completely different angle from the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam. What is the thinking behind saying that the only people who can clip content from recognised news publishers are the news publishers? The Minister mentioned in passing that there might be a problem of editing them, but it has become common practice these days for members of the public to clip from recognised news publishers and make comments. Is that not going to be allowed? That was the bit that completely confused me. It is too prescriptive; I can see all sorts of people getting caught by that.
The point that the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, made about what constitutes a recognised news publisher is where the issue gets quite difficult. The point was made about the “wrong” organisations, but I want to know who decides what is right and wrong. We might all nod along when it comes to Infowars and RT, but there are lots of organisations that would potentially fail that test. My concern is that they would not be able to appeal when they are legitimate news organisations, even if not to everybody’s taste. Because I think that we already have too much speech limiting in the Bill, I do not want any more. This is important.
When it comes to talking about the “wrong” organisations, I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred to people who went to Rupert Murdoch’s parties. I declare my interests here: I have never been invited or been to a Rupert Murdoch party—although do feel free, I say, if he is watching—but I have read about them in newspapers. For some people in this Chamber, the “wrong” kind of news organisation is, for example, the Times or one with the wrong kind of owner. The idea that we will all agree or know which news publishers are the “wrong” kind is not clear, and I do not think that the test is going to sort it out.
Will the Minister explain what organisations can do if they fail the recognised news publisher test to appeal and say, “We are legitimate and should be allowed”? Why is there this idea that a member of the public cannot clip a recognised news publisher’s content without falling foul? Why would they not be given some exemption? I genuinely do not understand that.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak very briefly. I feel a responsibility to speak, having spoken in Committee on a similar group of amendments when the noble Lords, Lord Lipsey and Lord McNally, were not available. I spoke against their amendments then and would do so again. I align myself with the comments of my noble friend Lord Black, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, just said, they gave a comprehensive justification for that position. I have no intention of repeating it, or indeed repeating my arguments in Committee, but I think it is worth stating my position.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, we have heard some very well-rehearsed lines during the debate today, with the usual protagonists. Nevertheless, the truth of the matter is that the Press Recognition Panel is as frustrated as many of us on these Benches and other Benches at the failure to implement a post-Leveson scheme of press regulation. Despite many efforts, it has never been fully put into effect.
I do not think I need to repeat a great deal of what has been said today. For instance, the record of IPSO, which the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, talked about, has been very well tracked by Hacked Off. This is not a proposal for state regulation—which is so often, if you like, the canard placed on it.
If not this Bill, which Bill? The media Bill is not going to tackle issues such as this, as my noble friend Lord McNally said. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has pointed out, this Bill has been a series of conversations —extremely fruitful conversations—but in this particular direction it has borne no fruit at all.
I must admit that, throughout my looking at the draft Bill and continuing to look through its various versions, this opt-out for news publishers has remained a puzzle. The below-the-line opt-out for the mainstream news media always strikes me as strange, because there is no qualification that there should be any curation of that below-the-line, user-generated content. That is peculiar, and it is rather like somebody in the last chance saloon being rewarded with a bouquet. It seems a rather extraordinary provision.
My noble friend Lord Allan rightly pointed to some of the dangers in the new provisions, and indeed in the provisions generally, for these services. I hope the Minister has at least some answers to give to the questions he raised. Progress on this and the scheme that the PRP was set up to oversee, which is still not in place, remain a source of great division across the parties and within them. There is still hope; it may be that under a different Government we would see a different result.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I was unfortunately unable to attend round 1 of this debate—I had to leave. My noble friend Lord Knight has absented himself from hearing what I am going to say about his remarks, so he must fear that he had got his lines wrong. I apologised to him for leaving him a bit exposed, because we had not quite anticipated how the conversation would go, but I think he did as well as he could, and I repeat the lines he said: this is not the right Bill to rerun the arguments about the Leveson report. I still believe that. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, does not think the media Bill is; maybe it is not, but at least we can make sure that the debate is properly argued.
It is interesting that, although we clearly have well-defined positions and antipathies present in the debate, a number of things have been said today that will be helpful, if we manage to get a little closer, in trying to resolve some of the issues outstanding. If I am still around and involved in it, I will approach this by trying to see what we can do together rather than the rights and wrongs of positions we have adopted before. It has worked for this Bill: we have achieved huge changes to the Bill because we decided from the start that we would try to see what was the best that could come out of it. That is the instinct I have as we go forward to any future debate and discussion, whether or not it is on the media Bill.
The puzzling thing here is why this is such a continuing concern that it needs to be brought into to any opportunity we have to discuss these areas. The sense we had in the pre-legislative scrutiny committee, which discussed this to some extent but not in quite the same range as we have tonight, or even in Committee, was that the issues raised in this Bill were really about protecting freedom of expression. At that stage, the Bill still had the legal but harmful clauses in it so perhaps had had less exposure to those issues in the debate we had. I still think it is primarily about that. I still have real concerns about it, as have been raised by one or two people already in our discussion. I do not think the recognised news provider definition is a good one; I do not think the definition of a journalist is a good one. The pre-legislative scrutiny committee wanted an objective test of material based around public interest, but the Government would not accept that, so we are where we are. We must try to ensure that what works is what we have in the Bill in relation to the topics before it.
The primary purpose must be to ensure material that will inform and enhance our knowledge about democracy, current affairs and issues that need to be debated in the public space, so it is clearly right that that which is published by recognised journalists—quality journalists is another phrase that has been used—should be protected, perhaps more than other material, but at the fringes there are still doubts as to whether the Bill does that.
I had taken it that in the amendments I signed up to, government Amendments 158 and 161, the material we were talking about was from recognised news publishers, not material self-generated in social media. I am looking hard at the Minister hoping he will be able to come to my aid when he comes to respond. The issue here is about making sure that material that was not originally broadcast but is still provided by a recognised news publisher is protected from being taken down, and it would not have been if those amendments were not made. I hope that is the right interpretation. That was the basis on which I signed up for them; I do not know quite where it leaves me if that is wrong.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
As I opened up that question, just to be clear, I was saying that it is exactly right that an individual user would not be covered, but I was trying to suggest that a social media-only news service that does not exist as a publication or a broadcaster outside social media, if it meets the Clause 50 test to be a recognised news publisher, should be given extra scope under the amendments.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
I hope they do not, and I think the Minister has to answer that question quite directly. The issue here is about quality material that would otherwise be taken down being kept in place so that we can all as a society be informed by that. That does not mean it needs to be from particular sources that we know to be egregious or running material which is certainly not in the public interest. Again, I make the point that that would have been a better way of approaching this in the legislation, but I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Allan, who knows his stuff—I often think we ought to bottle him and carry it around so we can take a whiff of his expertise and knowledge every time we get stuck on a problem, but I am not quite sure how we manage that.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that he was right to sign the amendments; I am grateful that he did. I do not know whether it is possible to have a sense of déjà vu about debates that took place before one entered your Lordships’ House, but if so, I feel I have had it over the past hour. I am, however, glad to see the noble Lords, Lord Lipsey and Lord McNally, back in their places and that they have had the chance to express their views, which they were unable to do fully in Committee. I am grateful to noble Lords who have joined in that debate again.
At present, Amendment 159 would enable news publishers that are members of Impress, the sole UK regulator which has sought approval by the Press Recognition Panel, to benefit from the Bill’s protections for news publishers, without meeting the criteria set out in Clause 50(2). This would introduce a legislative advantage for Impress members over other news publishers. The amendment would, in effect, create strong incentives for publishers to join a specific press regulator. We do not consider that to be compatible with our commitment to a free press. To that end, as noble Lords know, we will repeal existing legislation that could have that effect, specifically Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, through the media Bill, which was published recently.
Not only is creating an incentive for a publisher to join a specific regulator incompatible with protecting press freedom in the United Kingdom but it would undermine the aforementioned criteria. These have been drafted to be as robust as possible, with requirements including that organisations have publication of news as their principal purpose, that they are subject to a standards code and that their content is created by different persons. Membership of Impress, or indeed any other press regulator, does not and should not automatically ensure that these criteria are met.
Amendment 160 goes further by amending one of these criteria—specifically, the requirement for entities to be subject to a standards code. It would add the requirement that these standards codes be drawn up by a regulator, such as a body such as Impress. This amendment would create further incentives for news publishers to join a press regulator if they are to benefit from the exclusion for recognised news publishers. This is similarly not compatible with our commitment to press freedom.
We believe the criteria set out in Clause 50 of the Bill are already sufficiently strong, and we have taken significant care to ensure that only established news publishers are captured, while limiting the opportunity for bad actors to benefit.
The noble Lord, Lord Allan, asked about protections against that abuse by bad actors. The Bill includes protections for journalism and news publishers, given the importance of a free press in a democratic society. However, it also includes safeguards to prevent the abuse of these protections by bad actors. Platforms will still be able to remove recognised news publisher content that breaches their terms and conditions as long as they notify recognised news publishers and offer a right of appeal first. This means that content will remain online while the appeal is considered, unless it constitutes a relevant offence under the Bill or the platform would incur criminal or civil liability by hosting it. This marks a significant improvement on the status quo whereby social media companies can remove journalistic content with no accountability and little recourse for journalists to appeal.
We are clear that sanctioned news outlets such as RT must not benefit from these protections. We are amending the criteria for determining which entities qualify as recognised news publishers explicitly to exclude entities that are subject to sanctions. The criteria also exclude any entity that is a proscribed organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000 or whose purpose is to support an organisation that is proscribed under that Act. To require Ofcom or another party to assess standards would be to introduce press regulation by the back door.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, asked about protecting clipped or edited content. Given evolving news consumption habits, recognised news publishers may clip or edit content from their published or broadcast versions to cater to different audiences and to be used on different platforms. We want to ensure recognised news publisher content is protected in all its forms as long as that content is still created or generated by the news publisher. For example, if a broadcaster shares a link to its shorter, online-only version of a long-form TV news programme or documentary on an in-scope platform, this should still benefit from the protections that the Bill affords. The amendment that we have brought forward ensures that this content and those scenarios remain protected but removes the risk of platforms being forced to carry news publisher content that has been edited by a third party potentially to cause harm. I hope that clarifies that.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for making it clear that he does not intend to press his amendments to a Division, so I look forward to that. I am also grateful for the support for the Government’s amendments in this group.
“(ii) is video or audio content that was originally published or broadcast by a recognised news publisher, and is not a clipped or edited form of such content (unless it is the recognised news publisher who has clipped or edited it), or(iii) is a link to an article or item within sub-paragraph (i) or to content within sub-paragraph (ii).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that, in particular, online content published by a recognised news publisher that has not first been broadcast is included in the list of content which does not count as search content for the purposes of the Bill.
Member’s explanatory statement
This technical amendment ensures that the new Clauses proposed to be inserted after Clause 54 in my name setting out which kinds of content count as primary priority content and priority content harmful to children apply for the purposes of Part 3 of the Bill.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment omits powers to make regulations setting out which kinds of content count as primary priority content and priority content harmful to children. Those kinds of content are now set out on the face of the Bill (see the new Clauses proposed to be inserted after Clause 54 in my name).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a signpost to the new Clause proposed to be inserted after Clause 54 in my name setting out which kinds of content count as primary priority content harmful to children.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a signpost to the new Clause proposed to be inserted after Clause 54 in my name setting out which kinds of content count as priority content harmful to children.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a technical amendment omitting a line which is superfluous as a result of the next amendment in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment omits a provision about the relationship between illegal content and content harmful to children.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that technical provision about content harmful to children extends to primary priority and priority content harmful to children in the new Clauses proposed to be inserted after Clause 54 in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment omits a signpost to regulations about primary priority and priority content harmful to children, which is no longer needed as the new Clauses proposed to be inserted after Clause 54 in my name set out those kinds of content on the face of the Bill.
““Primary priority content that is harmful to children”
(1) “Primary priority content that is harmful to children” means content of any of the following kinds. (2) Pornographic content, other than content within subsection (6).(3) Content which encourages, promotes or provides instructions for suicide.(4) Content which encourages, promotes or provides instructions for an act of deliberate self-injury.(5) Content which encourages, promotes or provides instructions for an eating disorder or behaviours associated with an eating disorder.(6) Content is within this subsection if it—(a) consists only of text, or(b) consists only of text accompanied by—(i) identifying content which consists only of text,(ii) other identifying content which is not itself pornographic content,(iii) a GIF which is not itself pornographic content,(iv) an emoji or other symbol, or(v) any combination of content mentioned in sub-paragraphs (i) to (iv).(7) In this section and section (“Priority content that is harmful to children”) “injury” includes poisoning.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment describes which kinds of content count as primary priority content harmful to children for the purposes of Part 3 of the Bill.
““Priority content that is harmful to children”
(1) “Priority content that is harmful to children” means content of any of the following kinds.(2) Content which is abusive and which targets any of the following characteristics—(a) race,(b) religion,(c) sex,(d) sexual orientation,(e) disability, or(f) gender reassignment.(3) Content which incites hatred against people—(a) of a particular race, religion, sex or sexual orientation,(b) who have a disability, or(c) who have the characteristic of gender reassignment.(4) Content which encourages, promotes or provides instructions for an act of serious violence against a person.(5) Bullying content.(6) Content which—(a) depicts real or realistic serious violence against a person;(b) depicts the real or realistic serious injury of a person in graphic detail.(7) Content which—(a) depicts real or realistic serious violence against an animal;(b) depicts the real or realistic serious injury of an animal in graphic detail;(c) realistically depicts serious violence against a fictional creature or the serious injury of a fictional creature in graphic detail. (8) Content which encourages, promotes or provides instructions for a challenge or stunt highly likely to result in serious injury to the person who does it or to someone else.(9) Content which encourages a person to ingest, inject, inhale or in any other way self-administer—(a) a physically harmful substance;(b) a substance in such a quantity as to be physically harmful.(10) In subsections (2) and (3)—(a) “disability” means any physical or mental impairment;(b) “race” includes colour, nationality, and ethnic or national origins;(c) references to religion include references to a lack of religion.(11) For the purposes of subsection (3), a person has the characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex, and the reference to gender reassignment in subsection (2) is to be construed accordingly.(12) For the purposes of subsection (5) content may, in particular, be “bullying content” if it is content targeted against a person which—(a) conveys a serious threat;(b) is humiliating or degrading;(c) forms part of a campaign of mistreatment.(13) In subsection (6) “person” is not limited to a real person.(14) In subsection (7) “animal” is not limited to a real animal.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment describes which kinds of content count as priority content harmful to children for the purposes of Part 3 of the Bill.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment omits Clause 55 (regulations describing kinds of content harmful to children), as the kinds of content are now set out in the Bill - see the new Clauses proposed to be inserted after Clause 54 in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the next two amendments in my name omit references to regulations which are no longer needed, as primary priority content and priority content harmful to children are now set out in the new Clauses proposed to be inserted after Clause 54 in my name, not in regulations.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the first amendment of Clause 56 in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the first amendment of Clause 56 in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that OFCOM have 3 years from the date this Bill is passed to produce a report reviewing content harmful to children.
Baroness Merron
“Review: offences relating to animal torture content
(1) Within the period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must carry out a review of relevant offences under the—(a) Communications Act 2003, and(b) Animal Welfare Act 2006,to determine whether there is an offence of sending a communication to encourage or assist an act of animal torture, or sharing content related to animal torture, on a regulated service.(2) If the review under subsection (1) determines that one or more offences contained within the Acts does extend to such communications or content, the Secretary of State must, as soon as practicable, make regulations to designate the offence or offences under Schedule 7 to this Act (see section 198(3)).”Member’s explanatory statement
Following answers to a recent oral question (27 June), this amendment would require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of existing criminal offences under the listed enactments to determine whether they apply to online posts containing or facilitating animal torture. If they do, the Secretary of State would be compelled to add these offences to the list of priority offences in Schedule 7.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to speak to Amendment 180, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for adding his name to it and tabling Amendment 180A, which follows it. I am grateful to the Badger Trust, Action for Primates, Wildlife and Countryside Link and the many others who have been in contact about the worryingly high volume of animal cruelty and animal torture content that we see online. I thank the Minister for his engagement on this issue. I very much acknowledge the contribution of noble Lords across the House and their interest in this topic, not only when it was raised in Committee but when my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock secured a topical Oral Question on it just last month.
The good news is that everybody agrees that there is a problem here—one that was recently brought into sharp focus by a BBC investigation entitled “The Monkey Haters”. The bad news is that we do not seem to be able to agree on how to address these issues, whether under this Bill or through other forms of action. Users of what will become regulated services once this Bill has passed are using these platforms to discuss, order and share photographs and videos of extreme acts of animal cruelty.
The Government’s position appears to be that, while such activities are abhorrent, they do not generate human harm and are therefore outside the scope of this legislation. In my view, that position is undermined by some of the Government’s own amendments to this legislation, which identify content relating to animal cruelty as falling under priority harms to children. Of course, this measure is a welcome addition. However, as a number of noble Lords highlighted during the recent Oral Question, there is a growing body of evidence that those who engage in acts of animal cruelty go on to harm other human beings.
This amendment contains a modest proposal to review whether the offences already cited from the Dispatch Box apply to online animal torture activity and, if so, to designate those offences under Schedule 7 to the Bill. We accept that the Government are already undertaking a review of criminal offences with a view to expanding the list in Schedule 7, but we have not been able to ascertain the timings attached to that review, whether its findings will be made public or whether Parliament will have a role beyond approving statutory instruments.
In our discussions with the Minister, we had a simple ask: that he commit to including animal welfare issues in the ongoing review and to working with Defra’s Secretary of State to publish a Written Ministerial Statement outlining how many prosecutions have been brought under animal welfare laws, the timetable that applies and how those provisions will be kept under review. We do not consider a Written Ministerial Statement from the Secretary of State summarising government policy to be an unreasonable ask—particularly as this Government are happy to claim that they have done more for animal welfare than any other—yet the Government have hitherto been unable to accept our request. I understand that, just a few minutes ago, an offer of a Written Ministerial Statement was made; noble Lords will understand that I have not seen it as I am in the Chamber, but I am advised that it is not from the Defra Secretary of State and does not refer to the number of prosecutions, timescales or any of the other matters that we requested to be included.
The volume of this content has grown exponentially in recent years. This means thousands of animals being harmed and an even higher number of human beings exposed to abhorrent and horrific material. This amendment may not be perfect, but it will, we hope, encourage the Government to take this issue more seriously than they have done to date. The Minister will be aware that, in view of the Government’s response thus far, I am minded to test the opinion of the House on this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 180, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron. I will also explain why I put forward Amendment 180A. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, who pursued this issue with considerable force through her Question in the House.
There is clearly an omission in the Bill. One of its primary aims is to protect children from harmful online content, and animal cruelty content causes harm to the animals involved and, critically, to the people who view it, especially children. In Committee, in the Question and today, we have referred to the polling commissioned by the RSPCA, which found that 23% of 10 to 18 year-olds had seen animal cruelty on social media sites. I am sure that the numbers have increased since that survey in 2018. A study published in 2017 found—if evidence were needed—that:
“There is emerging evidence that childhood exposure to maltreatment of companion animals is associated with psychopathology in childhood and adulthood.”
The noble Baroness made an extremely good case, and I do not think that I need to add to it. When the Bill went through the Commons, assurances were given by the former Minister, Damian Collins, who acknowledged that the inclusion of animal cruelty content in the Bill deserves further consideration as the Bill progresses through its parliamentary stages. We need to keep up that pressure, and we will be very much supporting the noble Baroness if she asks for the opinion of the House.
Turning to my Amendment 180A, like the noble Baroness, I pay tribute to the Social Media Animal Cruelty Coalition, which is a very large coalition of organisations. We face a global extinction crisis which the UK Government themselves have pledged to reverse. Algorithmic amplification tools and social media recommendation engines have driven an explosive growth in online wildlife trafficking. A National Geographic article from 2020 quoted US wildlife officials describing the dizzying scale of the wildlife trade on social media. The UK’s national wildlife crime units say that cyber-enabled wildlife crime has become their priority focus, since virtually all wildlife cases they now investigate have a cyber component to them, usually involving social media or e-commerce platforms. In a few clicks it is easy to find pages, groups and postings selling wildlife products made from endangered species, such as elephant ivory, rhino horn, pangolin scales and marine turtle shells, as well as big cats, reptiles, birds, primates and insects for the exotic pet trade. This vast, unregulated trade in live animals and their parts is not only illegal but exacerbates the risk of another animal/human spillover event such as the ones that caused Ebola, HIV and the Covid-19 pandemic.
In addition to accepting the animal welfare amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, which I hope they do, the Government should also add offences under the Control of Trade in Endangered Species Regulations 2018 to Schedule 7 to the Bill. This would definitely help limit the role of social media platforms in enabling wildlife trafficking, helping to uphold the UK’s commitments to tackling global wildlife crime.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to support the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, and to make only one point. As someone who has the misfortune of seeing a great deal of upsetting material of all kinds, I have to admit that it sears an image on your mind. I have had the misfortune to see the interaction of animal and human cruelty in the same sequences, again and again. In making the point that there is a harm to humans in witnessing and normalising this kind of material, I offer my support to the noble Baroness.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Viscount Camrose) (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 180 and 180A seek to require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of existing legislation and how it relates to certain animal welfare offences and, contingent on this review, to make them priority offences under the regulatory framework.
I am grateful for this debate on the important issue of protecting against animal cruelty online, and all of us in this House share the view of the importance of so doing. As the House has discussed previously, this Government are committed to strong animal welfare standards and protections. In this spirit, this Government recognise the psychological harm that animal cruelty content can cause to children online. That is why we tabled an amendment that lists content that depicts real or realistic serious violence or injury against an animal, including by fictional creatures, as priority content that is harmful to children. This was debated on the first day of Report.
In addition, all services will need proactively to tackle illegal animal cruelty content where this amounts to an existing offence such as extreme pornography. User-to-user services will be required swiftly to remove other illegal content that targets an individual victim once made aware of its presence.
The noble Baroness asked about timing. We feel it is important to understand how harm to animals as already captured in the Bill will function before committing to the specific remedy proposed in the amendments.
As discussed in Committee, the Bill’s focus is rightly on ensuring that humans, in particular children, are protected online, which is why we have not listed animal offences in Schedule 7. As many have observed, this Bill cannot fix every problem associated with the internet. While we recognise the psychological harm that can be caused to adults by seeing this type of content, listing animal offences in Schedule 7 is likely to dilute providers’ resources away from protecting humans online, which is the Bill’s main purpose.
However, I understand the importance of taking action on animal mistreatment when committed online, and I am sympathetic to the intention of these amendments. As discussed with the noble Baroness, Defra is confident that the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and its devolved equivalents can successfully bring prosecutions for the commission and action of animal torture when done online in the UK. These Acts do not cover acts of cruelty that take place outside the UK. I know from the discussion we have had in this House that there are real concerns that the Animal Welfare Act 2006 cannot tackle cross-border content, so I wish to make a further commitment today.
The Government have already committed to consider further how the criminal law can best protect individuals from harmful communications, alongside other communications offences, as part of changes made in the other place. To that end, we commit to include the harm caused by animal mistreatment communications as part of this assessment. This will then provide a basis for the Secretary of State to consider whether this offence should be added to Schedule 7 to the OSB via the powers in Clause 198. This work will commence shortly, and I am confident that this, in combination with animal cruelty content listed as priority harms to children, will safeguard users from this type of content online.
For the reasons set out, I hope the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will consider not pressing their amendments.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
The Minister has not dealt with Amendment 180A at all.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
That really is not good enough, if I may say so. Does the Minister not have any brief of any kind on Amendment 180A?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I am sorry if the noble Lord feels that I have not dealt with it at all.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
The words “animal trafficking” have not passed his lips.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure the letter will be anticipated.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for their support for Amendment 180. I appreciate the consideration that the Minister has given to the issue. I am in no doubt of his sympathy for the very important matters at stake here. However, he will not be surprised to hear that I am disappointed with the response, not least because, in the Minister’s proposal, a report will go to the Secretary of State and it will then be up to the Secretary of State whether anything happens, which really is not what we seek. As I mentioned at the outset, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
“(2A) The regulations may also—(a) require providers to retain, for a specified period, data of a specified description associated with a report, and(b) impose restrictions or requirements in relation to the retention of such data (including how the data is to be secured or stored or who may access the data).(2B) The power to require the retention of data associated with a report includes power to require the retention of—(a) content generated, uploaded or shared by any user mentioned in the report (or metadata relating to such content), and(b) user data relating to any such person (or metadata relating to such data).“User data” here has the meaning given by section 206.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that regulations under this Clause may require a provider to retain data associated with a report sent to the NCA and impose restrictions or requirements in relation to the retention of the data.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, child sexual exploitation or abuse is an abhorrent crime. Reporting allows victims to be identified and offenders apprehended. It is vital that in-scope companies retain the data included in reports made to the National Crime Agency. This will enable effective prosecutions and ensure that children can be protected.
The amendments in my name in this group will enable the Secretary of State to include in the regulations about the reporting of child sexual exploitation or abuse content a requirement for providers to retain data. This requirement will be triggered only by a provider making a report of suspected child sexual exploitation or abuse to the National Crime Agency. The provider will need to retain the data included in the report, along with any associated account data. This is vital to enabling prosecutions and to ensuring that children can be protected, because data in reports cannot be used as evidence. Law enforcement agencies request this data only when they have determined that the content is in fact illegal and that it is necessary to progress investigations.
Details such as the types of data and the period of time for which providers must retain this data will be specified in regulations. This will ensure that the requirement is future-proofed against new types of data and will prevent companies retaining types of data that may have become obsolete. The amendments will also enable regulations to include any necessary safeguards in relation to data protection. However, providers will be expected to store, process and share this personal data within the UK GDPR framework.
Regulations about child sexual exploitation or abuse reporting will undergo a robust consultation with relevant parties and will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. This process will ensure that the regulations about retaining data will be well-informed, effective and fit for purpose. These amendments bring the child sexual exploitation and abuse reporting requirements into line with international standards. I beg to move.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, these seem very sensible amendments. I am curious about why they have arrived only at this stage, given this was a known problem and that the Bill has been drafted over a long period. I am genuinely curious as to why this issue has been raised only now.
On the substance of the amendments, it seems entirely sensible that, given that we are now going to have 20,000 to 25,000 regulated entities in scope, some of which will never have encountered child sexual exploitation or abuse material or understood that they have a legal duty in relation to it, it will be helpful for them to have a clear set of regulations that tell them how to treat their material.
Child sexual exploitation or abuse material is toxic in both a moral and a legal sense. It needs to be treated almost literally as toxic material inside a company, and sometimes that is not well understood. People feel that they can forward material to someone else, not understanding that in doing so they will break the law. I have had experiences where well-meaning people acting in a vigilante capacity sent material to me, and at that point you have to report them to police. There are no ifs or buts. They have committed an offence in doing so. As somebody who works inside a company, your computer has to be quarantined and taken off and cleaned, just as it would be for any other toxic material, because we framed the law, quite correctly, to say that we do not want to offer people the defence of saying “I was forwarding this material because I’m a good guy”. Forwarding the material is a strict liability offence, so to have regulations that explain, particularly to organisations that have never dealt with this material, exactly how they have to deal with it in order to be legally compliant will be extremely helpful.
One thing I want to flag is that there are going to be some really fundamental cross-border issues that have to be addressed. In many instances of child sexual exploitation or abuse material, the material has been shared between people in different jurisdictions. The provider may not be in a UK jurisdiction, and we have got to avoid any conflicts of laws. I am sure the Government are thinking about this, but in drafting those regulations, what we cannot do, for example, is order a provider to retain data in a way that would be illegal in the jurisdiction from which it originates or in which it has its headquarters. The same would apply vice versa. We would not expect a foreign Government to order a UK company to act in a way that was against UK law in dealing with child sexual exploitation or abuse material. This all has to be worked out. I hope the Government are conscious of that.
I think the public interest is best served if the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union, in particular, adopt common standards around this. I do not think there is anything between us in terms of how we would want to approach child sexual exploitation or abuse material, so the extent to which we end up having common legal standards will be extraordinarily helpful.
As a general matter, to have regulations that help companies with their compliance is going to be very helpful. I am curious as to how we have got there with the amendment only at this very late stage.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I rise to make a slightly lesser point, but I also welcome these amendments. I want to ask the Minister where the consultation piece of this will lie and to check that all the people who have been in this space for many years will be consulted.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, as ever, my noble friend Lord Allan and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, have made helpful, practical and operational points that I hope the Minister will be able to answer. In fact, the first half of my noble friend’s speech was really a speech that the Minister himself could have given in welcoming the amendment, which we do on these Benches.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, from this side we certainly welcome these government amendments. I felt it was probably churlish to ask why it had taken until this late stage to comply with international standards, but that point was made very well by the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am grateful to noble Lords for their support for these amendments and for their commitment, as expected, to ensuring that we have the strongest protections in the Bill for children.
The noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, asked: why only now? It became apparent during the regular engagement that, as he would expect, the Government have with the National Crime Agency on issues such as this that this would be necessary, so we are happy to bring these amendments forward. They are vital amendments to enable law enforcement partners to prosecute offenders and keep children safe.
Reports received by the National Crime Agency are for intelligence only and so cannot be relied on as evidence. As a result, in some cases law enforcement agencies may be required to request that companies provide data in an evidential format. The submitted report will contain a limited amount of information from which law enforcement agencies will have to decide what action to take. Reporting companies may hold wider data that relate to the individuals featured in the report, which could allow law enforcement agencies to understand the full circumstances of the event or attribute identities to the users of the accounts.
The data retention period will provide law enforcement agencies with the necessary time to decide whether it is appropriate to request data in order to continue their investigations. I hope that explains the context of why we are doing this now and why these amendments are important ones to add to the Bill. I am very grateful for noble Lords’ support for them.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the other amendment to Clause 60 in my name.
Rail Ticket Offices
(10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, it is difficult to overestimate just how valued the staff and services provided by station ticket offices are by the travelling public. This major change affecting 150 million passenger journeys, hitting the disabled and vulnerable elderly the hardest, is proposed to be completed in just three weeks.
Yesterday, in answer to my question on ticket office closures, the Minister said that the industry will of course do an impact assessment. The Royal National Institute of Blind People has said:
“A mass closure of rail ticket offices would have a hugely detrimental impact on blind and partially sighted people’s ability to buy tickets, arrange assistance and, critically, travel independently”.
Should that impact assessment have been carried out and published before the decision was taken? How credible does the Minister believe any consultation can be with a proposal being rammed through so quickly?
Ticket offices were used 150 million times last year, and assessments contained in consultation documents suggest that millions of those sales would be impossible through ticket machines, which simply do not have the full range of fares and services. The fares and ticketing on our railways are notoriously complicated, and it is often ticket office staff who help passengers navigate that complexity. Should the whole system of ticketing have been reviewed and simplified before this step was taken?
Lastly, I urge the Minister to consider extending the consultation period for this proposal to allow all those who will be affected to make their views known.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for a succession of questions there. She is right that the staff are valued. They are very much valued by the Government and indeed by the train operating companies, so much so that we have concluded that they do not need to be sitting in a ticket office to help passengers in whichever way they need.
The noble Baroness talked about ticketing and availability. It is the case that 99% of all tickets are available through ticket vending machines or online. On the question of an impact assessment, the impacts for each station are assessed individually under the process, which I am sure the noble Baroness is aware of as it was in place during the last Labour Government.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, the train operators have made it clear that this is being imposed on them by the Government. The Government have said that only 12% of tickets are bought through ticket offices, but what does that 12% mean? In the past year there were 1.4 billion separate rail journeys, so 168 million tickets were bought in ticket offices. Passengers who use ticket offices will be inconvenienced and deterred by the closure of those offices. That will hit elderly, disabled and poorer people most of all.
What assessment have the Government made of the particular impact on those in our society less able to buy tickets from machines? Does the Minister accept that the truth is that this is a question of trust? We do not believe government promises that there will be people wandering around stations to help people. There will be for the first few weeks, but they will disappear after that. The Government will tell us that there have to be reductions. We do not trust the Government to deliver on their promises.
Finally, does the Minister agree that at the very least there should be no ticket office closures until the Government have delivered on their long-awaited commitment to simplify the fare structure?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The Government have an ongoing commitment to simplify the fare structure and we are continuing to do so. The Rail Minister has engaged extensively and directly with accessibility groups and will continue to do so. We are also engaging with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee to ensure that we hear its views as well.
As I said in answer to a previous question, 99% of tickets can be bought through a ticket vending machine or online, and members of staff will be around to help anybody who has any problems in buying their tickets.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister know that the delay repay system, which I referred to in a question last week, often rewards people with vouchers from the companies? They often will not put money into your account. You are able to cash in those vouchers only at offices that sell railway tickets, so we could be in a very difficult situation here. If the Minister needs to write to me about this, I would quite understand.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I will certainly write to the noble Lord about this, but there will be various functionality within the new system, which will be more mobile than it is now and will allow people using cash, for example, to buy a ticket or a ticket to ride, which is one of the options available. On vouchers, I will write to him but I am fairly sure that will have been taken into account by the train operating companies when they put forward their proposals.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I use the ticket office at Staplehurst station and its staff are outstanding. The care that they show the customers and the way in which they help them plan their journey and buy the correct tickets is a credit to them. I truly hope that their skills will be kept, because the business will be the poorer without them. I am afraid that the ticket machines do not quite match up to the staff. Can my noble friend tell me if the new ticket machines will be able to replicate this service and whether AI will be used to enhance them?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for her exposition of the greatness of the staff. We absolutely value the staff, which is why we want to get them out there to enable them to help more people. Ticket vending machines are being continually upgraded and there are all sorts of ways we can upgrade them: for example, we are adding video calling to enable people to ask the absolute experts if they wish to take a particularly complicated route. If AI is appropriate, I am sure that the train operating companies are looking at it.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, I speak from personal experience, having travelled up and down from Liverpool twice this week alone. Only this morning, I was listening to the staff there who were worried sick about their jobs, but more importantly, I watched a partially sighted customer trying to get help and support which would not have been available had there been no assistant to help them. This is not about people; it is about profits and wiping people’s jobs out. I urge others to make sure, as I have already done today, that in respect of the consultation paper they vote no to this outrageous proposal.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, those staff will still be there to help the passenger, whether they be partially sighted or for whatever reason they need help. The noble Lord says that this is about profits but it is not at all, because the costs of running the railways fall to the taxpayer. We need to have a modern seven-day railway and that is what this Government are going to deliver.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, this is a necessary modernisation of the railways but what we have heard is the kind of thing that is argued about any change. The railways do not make money and need to be more modern; we ought to accept this and celebrate it.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I absolutely agree with my noble friend. There have been various interventions with technology over recent years. For example, the addition of gate lines necessarily meant that certain members of staff did not need to check tickets, and that is absolutely right. They can do far more valuable things. It is about helping passengers to get where they need to go, whether they have reduced mobility or not.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, there has been mention of the issues for disabled passengers. The Office of Rail and Road published its annual report today, which showed that only 66% of those with physical impairments received their pre-booked assistance. That is a one in three chance of not getting assistance, despite booking in advance. Can the Minister please explore how this situation can be improved, so that people with disabilities can use the railways?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
That is absolutely at the front of our minds when considering these changes. The ORR also published statistics which showed that there has been a 68% increase in passengers who need assistance to use our railways. Of course, getting people out from ticket offices and on to platforms and into gathering areas and waiting rooms to enable those people to travel more freely is top of mind.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister said that people can buy tickets online. That presupposes that people have a good mobile phone or a computer and a broadband line. Can the Minister tell the House how many individuals and households do not have a good phone, access to a computer or a broadband link? What help will the Government be offering to those who do not have these things?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
There are all sorts of channels for reaching train operating companies, including by traditional telephone. As I mentioned, not a single station which is currently staffed will be unstaffed in the future. There will therefore be no change for such individuals. They will be able to go to the station to seek the help of the staff, who will be able to assist them in buying a ticket.
Arrangement of Business
(10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Davies of Gower
That the House do adjourn during pleasure.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the House now take a short adjournment during pleasure, resuming at a time to be notified on the Annunciator.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Beith) (LD)
The Question is that the House do adjourn during pleasure.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Beith) (LD)
I will put that Question again. As many as are of that opinion will say “Content”; to the contrary “Not content”.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Beith) (LD)
I am not sure that the House wishes this matter to be decided by a Division, but I have no alternative if that is persisted.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
I understand the desire of the House to get on with the business. I get that, but the problem may be that we have not got any papers yet, so we will have to have a short adjournment to get those ready.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
No, they are not all ready, sadly. We have yet to get the Marshalled List produced. We need to get some papers produced so, on this occasion, I support the government Whip in moving a short adjournment. But having heard the House, I would say that it should be a short adjournment to get these papers printed.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, may I move an alternative motion, which is that this House do now adjourn and recommence at 11 am tomorrow? I am holding in my hand the papers—not yet the complete papers—and there are 23 Motions, lettered A to Y. I got this, still warm from the printer, about 15 or 20 minutes ago and I put it on the record for Hansard that it is now 7.45 pm. We have just been talking about the issue of discrimination and access, and everyone being able fully to participate in this debate. We are supposed to be the mother of all Parliaments. We cannot reasonably have a proper debate on an absolutely crucial Bill, which the world is watching, starting at some time presumably after 8 pm and going into the early hours. This is no way to run a country and I put it to your Lordships that we should now adjourn and come back and do this properly.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Beith) (LD)
I am going to take it that the view of the House, so far as I can establish it, is that we do now adjourn. I see no more participants in the debate—sorry, the Chief Whip wishes to speak.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Perhaps I could have a word. It is 7.45 pm and a lot of amendments were tabled very late on, towards 1 pm. There has been much discussion. I asked the Clerk of the Parliaments why there was a delay; it was because there was discussion of the amendments with those who proposed them. Yes, it is 7.45 pm and I suggest that we keep going. My Front Bench is certainly happy to keep going.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
In my experience, this is normal for ping-pong and I am not going to be told what to do by the Greens.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
We have heard from a number of Members. I certainly want us to adjourn briefly—I stress briefly—and then come back to decide these issues.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
What time is the noble Lord suggesting might be brief? To be honest, we should be having a usual channels discussion but would half an hour suit the noble Lord?
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Beith) (LD)
The occupant of the Woolsack has not been provided with the papers for the session to resume immediately if we do not adjourn. It is not in the interests of the House for that to happen.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, may I suggest that we adjourn during pleasure until we receive the Marshalled List? Ah—we have it, okay. Would the noble Baroness like to withdraw her proposal?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
With extreme reluctance, as I think the world is watching and I invite the House to consider what message the world is getting from the way we are supposedly doing democracy, I withdraw it.
Illegal Migration Bill
Wednesday 12th July 2023
(10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Illegal Migration Act 2023 View all Illegal Migration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 159-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Amendments and Reasons - (12 Jul 2023)
20:32 - Division on Motion A1 - Ayes: 217 / Noes: 151 - Motion A1 agreed.
22:08 - Division on Motion F1 - Ayes: 212 / Noes: 151 - Motion F1 agreed.
22:21 - Division on Motion G1 - Ayes: 209 / Noes: 143 - Motion agreed.
22:33 - Division on Motion J1. - Ayes: 220 / Noes: 141 - Motion agreed.
22:45 - Division on Motion K1 - Ayes: 202 / Noes: 144 - Motion K1 agreed.
22:59 - Division on Motion P1 - Ayes: 207 / Noes: 140 - Motion P1 agreed.
23:29 - Division on Motion W1 - Ayes: 174 / Noes: 122 - Motion W1 agreed.
00:05 - Division on Motion X1 - Ayes: 157 / Noes: 114 - Motion X1 agreed.
00:18 - Division on Motion Y1 - Ayes: 154 / Noes: 107 - Motion Y1 agreed.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
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 for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will, with the leave of the House, also speak to Motions D, S, T, U and V.
The Lords amendments do significant damage to the scheme provided for in the Bill. The Bill will only prevent and deter illegal migration if persons who meet the conditions in Clause 2 are swiftly returned to their home country or removed to a safe third country. For that to happen, we must end the cycle of late, repeated and spurious legal challenges. The Lords amendments will perpetuate that cycle.
Motion A relates to Lords Amendment 1, which would replace Clause 1 with a new clause that sets out that nothing in the Act shall
“require any act or omission that conflicts with the obligations of the United Kingdom under”
the five international agreements specified in the amendment.
As I have set out throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government take their international obligations, including under the ECHR, very seriously, and there is nothing in the Bill that requires any act or omission that conflicts with the UK’s international obligations. The only way to break the business model of the criminal gangs and to deter illegal migrants is if it is abundantly clear that the only outcome of illegal entry is not a new life in the UK. Therefore, it is essential that we take bold steps. Although some of the provisions in the Bill are novel, the Government are satisfied that the Bill can be implemented in line with convention rights.
As my noble friend Lord Wolfson set out on Report, Lords Amendment 1 is also objectionable from a constitutional perspective. In the United Kingdom, we follow a dualist approach, whereby international law is integrated into domestic law solely through parliamentary legislation. The Government are often criticised for rushing legislation and not allowing adequate scrutiny. Here, the tables are turned. Amendment 1 has profound and wide-ranging implications. It should not be shoehorned into this Bill without proper consideration of its consequences and an opportunity for Parliament properly to scrutinise the significance of such a step. If a future Government want to incorporate into domestic law the refugee convention or the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, it is open for them to do so, but that would be a significant legislative undertaking and a profound change to our domestic legal landscape. Amendment 1 is not the way to do it.
I turn to Motion S and Amendments 74B and 74C from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, which relate to the meaning of serious and irreversible harm. Serious harm suspensive claims recognise that there may be a clear reason as to why a person cannot be removed to a particular third country specified in the removal notice, while any human rights claim in respect of a removal—or related judicial review, if that took place following removal—is resolved. These claims must be based on the fact that the person would face a real, imminent and foreseeable risk of serious and irreversible harm if they were removed for such a temporary period. This test reflects the approach and terms on which the European Court of Human Rights may decide to indicate interim measures under Rule 39 of their rules of court. It is fitting that we use it here in an analogous situation.
We also continue to believe that it is helpful to decision- makers and the courts to set out in the Bill specific examples of harm that do not, or are unlikely to, constitute serious and irreversible harm. This will ensure a consistent approach in the determination of claims by the Home Office and appeals by the Upper Tribunal. That said, we have reflected on the debates on these clauses in this House and revisited the recommendations from the Constitution Committee. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for his time in discussing his concerns. As a result, we have brought forward an amendment in lieu which limits the power by regulations to amend the meaning of serious and irreversible harm, such that the power cannot be used to remove the existing examples of harm that constitute serious and irreversible harm.
I reiterate two points made by my noble friend Lord Stewart on Report. First, Clause 38 makes it clear that persecution and onward refoulement are examples of harm which constitute serious and irreversible harm for the purposes of a suspensive claim. Secondly, if the open expression of a person’s sexual orientation would prevent them living in a specified third country for the relevant period without being at real risk of serious and irreversible harm, they would meet the threshold for a serious harm suspensive claim, in line with the principles set out by the Supreme Court in the case of HJ (Iran). With these assurances and the amendment in lieu, I hope that I have been able to address the concerns of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and he would feel able to support Motion S.
In relation to Motions T and U, we remain firmly of the view that it is right to place limitations on judicial review challenges to removal. We are not preventing such challenges but saying that they should not suspend removal. The Bill includes bespoke provisions for removal condition suspensive claims and serious harm suspensive claims, which themselves afford appropriate opportunities for a person to challenge their removal before it takes place. Given these remedies, it is entirely appropriate that other legal challenges should be non-suspensive.
Finally, in relation to Motion V, I again reassure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, that the Bill, in enabling a court to overturn an age assessment decision on the basis that it is wrong in law, already covers challenges based on Wednesbury unreasonableness. It therefore follows that Lords Amendment 95 is not needed.
The House of Commons has disagreed with Lords Amendments 1, 73, 90, 93 and 95 by strong majorities in each case. It has proposed Amendment 74A in lieu of Lords Amendments 73 and 74, which addresses one of the key concerns of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. I therefore invite the House to agree the government Motions in this group. I beg to move.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Baroness Chakrabarti
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 1B in lieu—
“Introduction
In interpreting this Act, regard shall be given to the intention that its provisions, and any acts and omissions made as a result, are intended to comply with the United Kingdom’s obligations under-
(a) the 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
(b) the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees including the Protocol to that Convention;
(c) the 1954 and 1961 UN Conventions on the Reduction of Statelessness;
(d) the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child;
(e) the 2005 Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking Human Beings.””
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move Motion A1 as an amendment to Motion A. Ministers suggest that our Amendment 1, Amendment 7 as a consequential and Amendment 90 are wrecking and unnecessary. These criticisms are contradictory. If the Government take their international obligations so seriously, why should they be afraid to ensure that those charged with operating this proposed legislation, which clearly impacts on the rights of vulnerable people, understand that Ministers intend not to violate these rights? Why should Ministers have been unable to make a statement of their belief in ECHR compatibility in the Bill?
Alongside that strange logic comes a pseudo-legal argument from the Mickey Mouse school of jurisprudence that even to reference binding international obligations in domestic instruments somehow offends the sanctity of our dualist system. This is nonsense. It is because of our system, whereby international obligations signed by Ministers do not automatically become directly enforceable domestically without parliamentary approval, that successive Governments of both stripes have had to refer to various treaties or their contents in a host of relevant domestic measures. Section 2 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 expressly gave primacy to the refugee convention. In 2009, in the EN Serbia case, the Court of Appeal found that that provision did not constitute informal or backdoor incorporation or undermine the principle of dualism, which is designed to protect parliamentary sovereignty and not to insulate Governments from their obligations. The Children Act 1989 takes its central best interests of the child principle directly from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child—two of numerous precedents.
The treaties in our Amendment 1 were chosen by truly cross-party, all-party and non-party consensus for relevance to the people, measures and rights engaged by this Bill. The Government’s real objection, and to consequential Amendment 7 and Amendment 90, is that no one, especially His Majesty’s judges, should be able to second-guess Home Office decisions. That is simply contrary to the rule of law on which any civilised society, let alone a great democracy, must be built. None the less, in the spirit of respectful dialogue, we have listened, compromised and amended our new Clause 1, softening its requirement to require having regard to the various conventions when interpreting the Bill. There is no way that that can now be regarded as incorporation rather than interpretation.
Further, the consequential Amendment 7 is reformulated so that the Section 2 duty to remove a person will stand, notwithstanding an application for judicial review, if a court refuses permission, or even just refuses to make an interim injunction. To respond further to concerns from the other place and the Benches opposite about so-called protracted legal knots, interim relief preventing a removal is to be granted under our new version of Amendments 90 only after the Secretary of State has had a reasonable opportunity to tell a court why this should not happen. Far from being wrecking amendments, these are wholly reasonable compromises to restore some semblance of legality and respect for international obligations, domestic judges and the rule of law. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, there are three reasons we should be stubborn about not allowing the Bill to go through. The first is that this was not in the Tory Party manifesto: we do not have a duty to pass it. Secondly, Rwanda is not a safe country. Thirdly, we cannot pass legislation that allows the Government to break the law; that does not make sense.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, I support the amended version of Clause 1, put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. Whether or not Parliament intends to incorporate international treaties within our own law depends on the wording. The point was made on Report that the noble Baroness’s previous wording had no reference to interpretation. It seems to me quite clear now that the emphasis has been put on having regard to the provisions in these international treaties which bind this country for the purposes of interpreting this Act. I consider that this falls plainly on the right side of the line.
As for my own amendment to Motion S, which the noble Lord, Lord Murray, has addressed, I thank the Minister for his time, patience and reasonableness over the discussions concerning this. I was principally concerned that those who are entitled to the protection of the convention because of a well-founded fear of persecution in the country stated in the removal notice should not have to have an additional test of irreversible harm in order to prevent removal there. The assurances the noble Lord has given have satisfied me over that concern, particularly in relation to the principles in the case to which he drew attention, HJ (Iran) for LGBT refugees. My concerns have been satisfied and for that reason I will not oppose the Motion of the Government on this point.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, briefly, we on these Benches support all the Motions to amend the government Motions. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has well made the point that even if one could have argued that the original Amendment 1 was a backdoor incorporation—an argument I always found unpersuasive—that objection certainly cannot be made of the new text of Motion A1, which is clearly nothing of the sort. The Prime Minister has been at the NATO summit in Vilnius upholding international law against breaches through Russian aggression. Indeed, the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 cited the rule of law at one of the core principles. The Prime Minister was also recently at the Council of Europe summit. Again, the core values in the declaration were the threats to human rights, democracy and the rule of law.
On Report, the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, talked about how this amendment
“is firmly in the Conservative tradition of strengthening, not undermining, the international rule of law”.—[Official Report, 28/6/23; col. 704.]
She reminded noble Lords that
“Conservative Governments were instrumental in creating the first four conventions listed in the amendment”.
Finally, on Amendment 93, we still have concerns, as do doctors, about the proposals in the Bill for as yet unproven medical age assessments. Amendment 93 provides the most basic safety net for those undergoing age assessment: the right to appeal a judgment. Removing that right will not deter any smugglers, or child refugees in need of appropriate safety and protection. We urge support for the amendment Motions.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I support Motion A1 but will speak more particularly to Motion U1 in my name, to which the noble Baroness just referred. It proposes that if an age-assessment judicial review is in progress, removal should be delayed until its completion. I welcome comments from Ministers that those subject to an age dispute will be accommodated in an age-appropriate setting here in the UK, but can the Minister confirm that will be the case in a third country? Will Rwanda, for example, be informed that a young person is subject to an age dispute, and will the Rwandan Government then be required by the UK to keep that person separate from other adult residents and to supervise them properly as a child until the courts have made a judgment?
The Secretary of State has a legal duty to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. Can the Minister therefore say how the welfare of a child will be protected by not allowing judicial review to act as a temporary delay to their removal? The Government appear to be arguing that when a child legally challenges an age assessment, it is simply a spurious attempt to use legal methods to postpone removal. However, as we know, the majority of children are found to be children after local authority assessments, so it is more likely that what is happening is an attempt to protect their proper right to be treated as a child. Can the Minister therefore take the opportunity at least to confirm that when an individual’s age is disputed, they will not be subject to removal before having met with a social worker and a child protection team for a more comprehensive age-assessment process?
The determination that an individual may be a child and therefore could deserve all the rights a child is due should and must be reason enough to prevent their removal. When the implications for children are so grave and lifelong, it seems that to not delay a child’s removal from the UK until those questions are resolved is immoral. I plead with the Government to recognise this as a failure of safeguarding, which we are all trying to treat at the highest possible standard. However, in view of the lateness of the hour when we are likely to reach a vote on this matter, and the many other matters your Lordships’ House has to deal with tonight, I am not minded at present to press this Motion to a Division.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I do not know whether I should declare an interest as a pseudo-lawyer, or perhaps as Mickey Mouse. I am not entirely convinced that framing the debate in that way is appropriate.
I have a number of things to say. First, the fact that Motion A1, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has been rephrased as it has been, shows that those of us who argued that the previous version was substantive, and not interpretative, were right. However, the Motion as redrafted is also improper because it does two things—here I again respectfully part company with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. He read the Motion but omitted words in its second line. Let us have a look at what it actually says:
“In interpreting this Act, regard shall be given to the intention that its provisions”—
that refers to the provisions in the Bill—
“and any act and omissions made as a result, are intended to comply”.
Even now, it is not properly an interpretative provision, because it does not just apply to interpreting the words; it is also said to apply to any acts and omissions made under the Act, as it will become. That still has substantive consequences, and the effect is still—this time in an evening rather than in an afternoon—that we are effectively incorporating these treaties into our domestic law.
That is why the words
“and any acts and omissions made as a result”
are still objectionable, but the rest of it, while maybe not objectionable, is unnecessary. As I mentioned on Report, the law of this country has always been that, in the absence of express words to the contrary, all statutes are presumed to be in accordance with our international obligations. That was most recently set out by Lord Dyson, speaking for the Supreme Court in the Assange case, when he said that
“there is no doubt that there is a ‘strong presumption’ in favour of interpreting an English statute in a way which does not place the United Kingdom in breach of its international obligations”.
The fact that we now have to go through the contortions of trying to fit this reformulated amendment into interpretation when it still has substantive consequences shows that this is a road down which we should not be going at all. In so far as the intention is that legislation should be interpreted in line with our international commitments, that is already part of the law. In so far as it says that
“any acts and omissions made as a result”
of this Bill are to be so interpreted, that has substantive consequences.
I respectfully suggest that those points are not those of a pseudo-lawyer, nor are they Mickey Mouse points. If I may finish where I began, it is somewhat unfortunate that that is how they are being described.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I have the misfortune to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson. I support entirely what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, said. The key words in this reformulated amendment are “In interpreting this Act” and “regard”. It would not write these conventions into our law, as the previous amendment was in danger of doing. This a pure interpretation provision, and it is entirely consistent with the way the courts approach these various conventions. The assumption is that the United Kingdom, having signed up to the conventions, will respect them in the formulation of its provisions in our domestic law. The court applies that principle in finding a meaning of the words before it in statutory instruments and in primary legislation. This is entirely in accordance with the way the courts approach the matter. The key words are, “In interpreting this Act”, and “regard”. It is not binding; it is just that regard will be had. That is the way the provision should read. I support the amendment because it is entirely orthodox and consistent with principle.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti’s Motion A1 and the various provisions that follow from it. Without getting into the legal arguments that have just been articulated by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope and Lord Etherton, I support the fact that the key words are the first few words, in particular to try to deal with the criticism that was made of the previous amendment.
The only point I would add is that it is important for us to have something like this in the Bill given the criticism, concern and questions that have been raised about the Bill by many well-respected international organisations, bodies and individuals. We all expect something to be done about the challenge that we face, but we want it done in a way which enhances our international reputation and conforms to the various international treaties and our responsibilities. That is why Motion A1 is particularly important and should be supported.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I thank the House for the dispatch this group has been dealt with and for the contributions from across the Chamber. It will come as no surprise to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that I disagree with her interpretation and agree with that of my noble friend Lord Wolfson. Frankly, if one looks at Amendment 1B, one can see that “regard” must be read alongside “intended to comply”, so this revised amendment is equally problematic. The point my noble friend Lord Wolfson made is entirely right: it amounts to an acceptance that the earlier version of the amendment would also have been a very significant constitutional innovation, predicated on the back of an amendment to the Bill and a massive change to our constitutional framework. I am afraid that I therefore disagree with the noble Baroness and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, on Amendment 1B.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords, particularly to the noble and learned Lords who gave their ruling on the backdoor incorporation point. Of course, Section 2 of the 1993 Act was much stouter than either version of our Amendment 1.
Dr King, not a judge but a man of God, famously said:
“It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important”.
Across this House yesterday, we pleaded for kindness. Today, we come with a more modest plea: for the rule of law. I have moved the Motion and ask the House to approve it.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 2, 12, 20 and 22 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 22A to 22Q in lieu.
“Amendment of date in section 2(3) etc
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the date which is for the time being specified in—
(a) section 2(3) (duty to remove: date of entry or arrival in the United Kingdom);
(b) section 4(7)(a) (application to claims made on or after passing of this Act);
(c) section 5(12)(a) or (14)(a) (application to claims made on or after passing of this Act).
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may make consequential amendments to this Act or any other enactment.
(3) Provision made by virtue of subsection (2) may, in particular, amend this Act or any other enactment to modify the operation of a provision which would otherwise apply to a person who meets, or has ever met, the condition in section 2(3) (including to enable that provision to operate as if an amendment to section 2(3) had not been made).
(4) An amendment made by virtue of subsection (1) may have the effect that a provision mentioned in that subsection specifies—
(a) a particular calendar date, or
(b) a date which is determined by the occurrence of a particular event (for example the coming into force of a provision of this Act, generally or for a particular purpose).
(5) But such an amendment may not have the effect that the provision specifies a date which is earlier than the date specified before the amendment was made.”
“(5) For the purposes of this section and section 16, a person (“C”) is an unaccompanied child if—
(a) C meets the four conditions in section 2, reading subsection (3) of that section as if it referred to a person entering or arriving in the United Kingdom as mentioned in subsection (2) of that section on or after 7 March 2023,
(b) C is under the age of 18, and
(c) at the time of C’s entry or arrival in the United Kingdom by virtue of which C meets the condition in section 2(3), no individual (whether or not a parent of C) who was aged 18 or over had care of C.”
“(4) Until section 2(1) comes into force in relation to a person, section 8AA of the Immigration Act 1971 has effect in relation to that person as if it also permitted the Secretary of State to give the person limited leave to enter or limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom in any other circumstances, subject as follows.
(5) If a person in relation to whom section 8AA of the Immigration Act 1971 applies leaves or is removed from the United Kingdom after having become such a person, subsection (4) of this section does not permit the Secretary of State to give the person limited leave to enter the United Kingdom if the person returns to the United Kingdom (but see section 8AA(3) of that Act).
(6) If a person in relation to whom section 8AA of the Immigration Act 1971 applies is given limited leave to enter the United Kingdom under subsection (3) of that section, subsection (4) of this section does not permit the Secretary of State to give the person limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom (but see section 8AA(4) of that Act).
(7) Any leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom given to a person by virtue of subsection (4) is to be disregarded in determining, for the purposes of this Act or any other enactment, whether the person meets the four conditions in section 2.”
“(za) section (Amendment of date in section 2(3) etc) (amendment of date in section 2(3) etc);”
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will speak also to Motions F and G.
Motion B deals with the retrospective application of the duty to make arrangements for removal. We have reflected on the arguments put forward on this issue by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, on Report. We have brought forward Amendments 22A and 22Q in lieu. Noble Lords will recall that the Lords amendments sought to move the operative date of the Clause 2 duty from 7 March this year to the date of that clause’s commencement. We believe that such a change carries a significant risk of there being a surge in channel crossings—a fire sale, if you will—as we approach the commencement date. To guard against this, the amendments in lieu instead provide for the duty to remove to apply to a person who enters the United Kingdom unlawfully from the date of this Bill’s Royal Assent.
We will keep this under review ahead of the Bill’s implementation, as we have included a reserve power to change the new operative date by regulations. This could, for example, enable us to focus the initial implementation of the Bill on those who arrived here illegally via small boats rather than by other means. I should stress that the 7 March date will continue to apply for the purpose of the power conferred on the Secretary of State to provide accommodation for unaccompanied children and for the purpose of the ban on re-entry, settlement and citizenship. I trust that this compromise approach will meet with the approval of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile.
Motion F relates to Lords Amendment 9, moved on Report by the noble Lord, Lord German. This relates to the issue of the inadmissibility of asylum and human rights claims within the UK system. It remains the Government’s contention that declaring such claims to be admissible is a core part of the scheme provided for in the Bill. The Court of Appeal unanimously confirmed that removing asylum seekers to a safe country for their asylum claims to be processed is entirely consistent with the refugee convention, including Article 31—a point that I mentioned a moment ago. This amendment would simply encourage people to game the system, drawing things out in an attempt to reach a six-month cut-off date. This amendment was rejected by the Commons by a strong majority of 76. Given that, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord German, will be content to agree to Motion F.
Finally, Motion G relates to Lords Amendment 23, put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. The United Kingdom is a stout defender of LGBT communities across the globe. Our commitment to this cause remains unwavering. So, although I understand and sympathise with the noble and learned Lord’s desire to protect LGBT people who would face persecution were they to be sent to one of the countries listed in the amendment, I remain strongly of the view that the amendment is unnecessary as the Bill already delivers the protections that he seeks.
We are committed to the principle of non-refoulement, as a Jamaican national who makes a protection claim will not be returned to Jamaica. Were they to be fearful of being at real risk of suffering serious and irreversible harm, and were they to be removed to a specified third country, they would be able to make a serious harm suspensive claim. As I have previously indicated, in considering such a claim, the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of HJ (Iran) would be applied such that if the open expression of a person’s sexual orientation would prevent them from living in the specified third country without being at real risk of serious and irreversible harm, they would meet the threshold for a serious harm suspensive claim.
I hope the noble and learned Lord has been able to reflect on my assurances and on the outcome of the vote yesterday in the other place, and that he now feels able to support Motion G. I beg to move.
Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)
Lord Carlile of Berriew
Moved by
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 22R as an amendment to Amendment 22B—
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I hope I will be allowed a moment when referring to my Motion B1 and Amendment 22R on page 5 of the Marshalled List to pay a very short tribute to the staff of the Public Bill Office. I was treated very kindly by a very tolerant member of staff there when I was being completely dysfunctional late last night and early this morning. They have been put under enormous pressure, and I think we should appreciate that. It may have felt to them like bullying, I am afraid.
I do not know why we have been forced to consider these amendments today, or indeed before the Summer Recess. The very earliest this Bill could ever be used would be after the Supreme Court decision in October, or whenever that is given; we do not know the exact date. Indeed, that may not be the end of the litigation in any event. I do not understand why we were not left to consider this in the sittings in September. I hope we will not be put in this position again.
I now turn to my Motion. This is where I express my genuine gratitude to the Government—to the Minister and others, including the Chief Whip—because they have made, in my view, a correct and noble concession to the objections that this House voted for in an amendment I moved on retrospectivity, pointing out as I did at the time that retrospectivity, though not a “never”, is frowned on in our law.
My Motion on page 5 of the Marshalled List—which I will not test the opinion of the House on tonight—mitigates the rigour of the exception that has been created in the Government’s amendments. They say they have abandoned retrospectivity, to put it crudely, but they have retained a regulatory power to abandon retrospectivity. I am not going to force the issue tonight, but I ask the Government to reflect on the constitutionality of that approach, because it makes me feel decidedly uncomfortable. I do not want to dilute my thanks for the acceptance in principle of what I moved a few days ago.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests as laid out in the register. These Benches are supportive of the discomfiture, which the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, just referred to, to find that eventual clarification. We also support Motion G1 in this group.
My Motion F1 would mean that if an individual has been made inadmissible under this legislation and has not been removed to a safe country after six months, their claim will be processed within the UK system. The Ministers in both Chambers, in response to my amendment at an earlier stage, said—it has been repeated here—that people might game the system or that it would incentivise people to make spurious claims so as to extend their time in the United Kingdom in order to reach the magic six months.
In response to this concern, the current form of Motion F1 would pause the calculation of six months during any suspensive claim as set out in the Bill. It is also important to be mindful that the Bill in itself is claimed by Ministers to prevent people from making last-minute legal challenges to stop removals. My Motion totally disincentivises people from making spurious claims.
The Minister in the other place said that my earlier amendment would undermine the Bill. It does not. It would simply provide a backstop that protects the taxpayers of this country from indefinitely supporting people existing in the UK in limbo.
The Government’s own impact assessment on the Bill assumes that people will be detained for 40 days before removal. In this Chamber, we have heard constantly from the Minister that it will be not months but weeks or days when people are removed. On that basis, the ability to make a claim after six months should not be a problem, because it is totally in line with the Government’s expectations of their very own Bill.
Without this amendment, the Home Secretary is setting herself up for an extremely challenging time. There will be no way of resolving the foreseeable challenge of not having anywhere to remove people who arrive in the United Kingdom on irregular routes. Whether that is resolved in the future, the Government express the desire that they will be able to make this happen. If you believe, in the Government’s own words, that the Bill can be “workable”, then it is entirely financially prudent for us in this Chamber to try and insist that, in the current climate, the Government should be prudent with their spending of the public purse in using taxpayers’ money to support people indefinitely and without a returns agreement—because six months will have passed.
In addition to the financial considerations, it does not seem to me to be particularly in line with a Conservative mindset to enforce that people remain in the United Kingdom without being able to contribute, use their skills or participate in society. If these people cannot be removed after a reasonable amount of time, their claim should be processed, so that they either get on with their lives in the United Kingdom or be removed to their country of origin.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, I draw attention to Motion G and my Amendment 23B in lieu. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, in particular, who has been a stalwart supporter of me in relation to this clause from the very beginning.
The clause identifies countries currently specified in Schedule 1 which, the evidence and the law show—by virtue of decisions made by UK courts—are not safe places. I explained to the House on Report what the evidence briefly was in relation to each of them. The House and I have not received any refutation of the point that I made—that all these countries are unsafe places for LGBT people. The only answer that is given by the Government and repeated by the Minister is that this will all come out in the wash when a removal notice is served, and a serious harm suspensive claim can be made.
I am afraid that simply is not good enough. The Bill contains a schedule: Schedule 1. Schedule 1 identifies itself as listing places to which persons can be removed. Schedule 1 is related back to the provisions of Clauses 5 and 4, which provide that people can be moved only to those countries in Schedule 1.
If the approach of the Minister were correct, we would not have a schedule at all. But we have a schedule, and it rightly makes a distinction between those countries which are safe—so it says—and those which are not. There is also a division between those which are safe for women and those which are not. I have put forward the amendment for another group of disadvantaged people, who, as the Minister referred to, are long recognised in our own law: LGBT people.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to the amendment in lieu, in Motion G1, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. Taking what the Government have said at face value on their protections of LGBT people, I ask them to accept the amendment, because it reinforces the principle of the protection of LGBT people and others.
On reflection, I point out that, of the 58 countries that currently criminalise homosexuality—and they are on the increase, as we have seen with Uganda—over 50% are in the Commonwealth. They are countries with which we are more than likely to reach safe third country agreements. Furthermore, 11 countries currently have the death penalty, and there is further agitation for the increase of that across other states. I therefore argue that the amendment is proportionate and necessary.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, on getting a concession from the Government and understand the point he made with his Motion, which I understand he will not move. I am pleased that it has been accommodated.
The noble Lord, Lord German, explained his amendment extremely well; it provides a backstop for the taxpayer to stop people going into legal limbo, being a burden on the taxpayer indefinitely and getting into the grey area which so many in this situation are in right now. As he said, it is totally in line with the Government’s expectations of the Bill, so if the noble Lord chooses to press his Motion F1 then we will support it.
My noble friend Lord Cashman summed up the support for Motion G1, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. If he chooses to move it, we will support him. As my noble friend said, it reinforces the principle of protection for LGBT people. In the words of the noble and learned Lord, Schedule 1 should not provide a veneer of respectability to certain countries that are currently on it, so we would support him.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, as I indicated earlier, I ask the Government to consider leaving to Parliament the final decision on any regulations reintroducing retrospectivity. That said, for the reasons I gave earlier, I beg leave to withdraw Motion B1.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 6, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64 and 65, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 65A.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I will speak also to Motions H, P and Q. It remains the Government’s view that there are clear opportunities to misuse our modern slavery protections. The amendments agreed by your Lordships’ House on Report would severely undermine and in some cases prevent the Government from being able to prevent potential misuse and effectively tackle the crisis of illegal entry.
As I have repeatedly made clear, the scheme provided for in the Bill will succeed in preventing and deterring illegal migration into the UK only if we can swiftly remove illegal entrants either to their home country or to a safe third country. Having to wait more than 500 days for a conclusive grounds decision is not swift by any stretch of the imagination.
While it remains the case that the Government cannot support any of the amendments to which these Motions relate, I recognise the concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Randall and others about the impact of the Bill on those who are exploited in the United Kingdom. It is worth reminding this House that these provisions will not affect potential victims of modern slavery referred into the national referral mechanism who are British nationals and nor will they impact unaccompanied children under the age of 18 or those who lawfully entered the UK and subsequently overstayed. Additionally, changes to the Bill agreed in the other place mean that the retrospective application of the duty to remove will be applicable only from Royal Assent, removing a significant cohort from the reach of these time-limited provisions.
Furthermore, this change reduces the likelihood of individuals in this cohort being exploited in the UK, given that they are more likely to be in detention rather than out in the community. None the less, the Government recognise the importance of enabling potential victims of modern slavery to co-operate with law enforcement to ensure successful prosecutions.
We are committed to stamping out human trafficking and to bringing criminal gangs to justice, including those who commit offences in the United Kingdom. That is why, alongside our pre-existing exception, which allows victims to remain in the United Kingdom to co-operate with an investigation where necessary, we will provide in statutory guidance that an individual who has arrived in the UK illegally and has a positive reasonable grounds decision based on an incident that has taken place in the United Kingdom will be afforded 30 days from this positive decision to confirm that they will co-operate with an investigation in relation to their exploitation. They will not be removed within this period, which affords them protection equivalent with those set out in ECAT. Should they continue to co-operate with such an investigation, they will continue to be entitled to the support and protections of the NRM. Given this, I do not see the need for my noble friend’s Amendment 56, or for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, Amendment 57.
I hope I have been able to reassure my noble friend Lord Randall and other noble Lords as to how these provisions will apply and operate. We expect that relatively few of those subject to the duty in Clause 2 will be potential victims of modern slavery whose exploitation took place in the UK, and for those potential victims, our statutory guidance will make it clear that they can continue to access support where they are co-operating with an investigation.
On this basis, and in view of the votes in the other place to disagree with Amendments 6 and 56, I invite the House to agree the government Motions. I beg to move.
Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C)
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 6, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64 and 65, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 65A”
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move Motion C1, as an amendment to Motion C. I shall not repeat the extensive arguments we had both in Committee and on Report, save to say that this concerns modern slavery, which is a brutal crime that involves sophisticated criminal networks buying and selling people for profit.
I listened very carefully to what the Minister said this evening, but the fact is that if the Bill is left unamended, it completely undermines the Modern Slavery Act, and we will see victims of crime punished for crimes committed by the perpetrators, deported or held in detention centres, exacerbating the pre-existing trauma that so many of them face. Once again, the Minister implies that his own modern slavery national referral mechanism process provides opportunities to misuse the modern slavery protections, despite the evidence, to which he has never responded, that 90% of competent authorities’ decisions were positive last year—in other words, there were reasonable grounds that someone was a victim of modern slavery. Where are the failings there with the NRM system, which his own officials oversee and administer?
The Minister did not repeat the claim tonight that the national referral mechanism rate for people arriving in the UK on small boats and being detained for return has risen from 6% in 2019 to 73% in 2021. That was a claim which he has made both in Committee and on Report and which his colleague, the Minister in the Commons, made in the other place. But last night, Mrs Theresa May pointed out that the figures that Ministers cite of that increase from 6% to 73% are simply not right in respect of modern slavery. They are actually talking about people who are subsequently detained for removal. As Mrs May asked, will the Government confirm that the average percentage of people coming on small boats and claiming modern slavery has not changed over the last three years and is around 7%?
I have of course listened to the Government’s concession on retrospection, although I noted the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, which really qualifies the concession which has been made.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to my Motion P, to which the Minister referred. I should refer to my interest as a deputy chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation. Perhaps it should be called not the Human Trafficking Foundation but the “modern slavery foundation”, because there is a difference with human trafficking, which is what I think stop the boats is all about. By dint of modern slavery, everybody who is enslaved and arrives in this country has come in illegally. Nobody comes in legally for modern slavery.
I am very disappointed with this Bill. However, I am a pragmatist. Years in retail taught me that sometimes you cannot have everything you want. So when my right honourable friend Theresa May spoke so eloquently and voted against the Government—and I can say as a former Deputy Chief Whip that that was only the second time she has ever voted against the Conservative Whip, which tells you something; you could not wish for a more loyal person—she did so because, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, just said, it is not a great Bill in respect of modern slavery.
However, my noble friend and my right honourable friend down the other end in the other place made some concessions about what they would put in the guidance. My Motion basically asks that those concessions, that guidance, be put in the Bill. I would have preferred my original words—I would have preferred all sorts of things—but in order to make sure that we can get something done for the victims of this horrendous, heinous crime, if the Minister does not have a damascene conversion, when the time comes, I will test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches, I cannot express strongly enough our huge disappointment about what is happening with the Modern Slavery Act. I very much agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said. The Minister talked about “opportunities to misuse”, when it is the Home Office which approves the first responders who have to get possible victims of slavery into the NRM in the first place. He talked about enabling co-operation but, with what most of the people in this situation will have gone through, 30 days is simply insufficient for them to be able to bring themselves to co-operate with an authority figure in a foreign country when they are still worried about what their trafficker might do when he finds them and about what they will do if they have to try to get away from the system. It is simply not enough.
To co-operate requires support. That, in turn, requires trust, and that, in turn, requires time. Statutory guidance will of course be welcome. But only today I and other noble Lords received a briefing from the Rights Lab at the University of Nottingham on government commitments relating to Part 5 of the 2022 Act—the modern slavery part—analysing whether they had been met, partially met or not met at all. It did not make for very happy reading. It is a shame that one has to say that. We support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Randall. We wish that there were more coming before the House tonight that we could support too.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt for moving his amendments in a concise and informed way and for putting before the House the importance of the Modern Slavery Act and defending its principles.
I draw attention to Motion P1, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Randall, which is particularly important as it seeks to protect victims of modern slavery exploited in the UK. Although the Minister pointed to the protection the Government may give to British citizens, some of the exploited people the noble Lord, Lord Randall, referred to would not be British citizens and would therefore be out of scope.
It is worth spending a minute considering that we as a Parliament are here tonight reflecting on what was one of the finest achievements of the last Conservative Government and one of the proudest achievements of a former Conservative Prime Minister. I stand here as a proud Labour politician saying that. It was one of the reasons why our country was regarded as a world leader by countries across the world, and it was brought about by the actions of a Conservative Government.
When you read the speeches of not only a former leader, Iain Duncan Smith MP, but a former Prime Minister, it is no wonder that the latter is incredulous that her own party and Government would seek, as she says, to undermine completely an Act of which everyone was proud, including most Conservatives. I find it astonishing that the Government Front Benches of this House and the other place should simply sweep her views aside, almost as though they are the rantings of a failed person who is no longer relevant. She deserves greater respect than that, and to be recognised for what she achieved. I think I am right in saying that it was the first such legislation in the world. It was blown away not by a vindictive Labour Government but by her own Conservative Government, who have somehow just brushed it aside.
The noble Lord, Lord Randall, does us a huge service in bringing forward an amendment that I hope has the support of many of your Lordships, from all sides, and which tries to protect something of that achievement, that triumph, of a previous Conservative Government. In doing that, he gives us the opportunity to mark with great respect that achievement and work of a previous Conservative Government and Prime Minister.
I hope that the noble Lord will test the opinion of the House and that noble Lords will see fit to support the amendment in very large numbers, so that when it goes back to the other place they will think again about what they have done.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I thank the House for the dispatch with which the speeches on this group have been dealt with. To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, on just one point, clearly, we do not agree and I am afraid that I cannot accept his amendment. On the statistic that he cited, I simply say that that statistic demonstrates the problem we face when we seek to remove people. Such statistics relate to people who were in detention and it was those in detention who, at a massively increased rate, sought to claim to be victims of modern slavery in order, I suggest to Members of this House, to defer their removal.
For that reason, I must stress to the House that the proposed amendment would blow a hole in this scheme, and I am afraid we cannot accept my noble friend Lord Randall’s amendment, as supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. There are too many opportunities to misuse the provisions in the Modern Slavery Act, with allegations of modern slavery being made by those entering the country illegally. I entirely take on board what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has said about the triumph of the Modern Slavery Act, and I remind the House that it remains in force in relation to victims of modern slavery who are within Britain and are British citizens. These provisions are protected in Clause 21 by a sunset provision. These are emergency measures to deal with an emergency, and for those reasons I cannot accept the amendments.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, it is tempting to respond in detail to the Minister, but obviously I will not do it. What is so striking is how little confidence he has in the department he and his Ministers run to administer a system they have legislated for. It is deeply disappointing, but I beg leave to withdraw Motion C1.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 7, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 7A.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion D. I beg to move.
Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D)
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Beith) (LD)
The original Question was that Motion D be agreed to, since when Motion D1 has been moved as an amendment to Motion D. The Question therefore is that Motion D1 be agreed to. The matter will be decided by a Division.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, this is a consequential amendment and should just be moved formally by the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Beith) (LD)
It is a matter for the House whether it is treated as a consequential amendment, and not one that I can rule on.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 8, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 8A.
Lord Dubs
At end insert, “and do propose Amendment 8B in lieu—
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, this amendment to the Motion is about the rights of children, giving them their entitlement to claim asylum, which would be declared inadmissible under the provisions of the Bill. We have talked about children a great deal; indeed, concerns about children run right through many of the debates we have had and many of the other amendments. My point is that any child who arrives in this country, even if not by legally approved means, should still not lose their right to claim asylum. If, for example, a child in Calais with family in this country, not finding any legal method, gets here and uses, unfortunately, these nasty people traffickers, all I would say is that surely we should not deny that child the right to come to this country and claim asylum here; or, having got to this country, to claim asylum here. It is a very simple proposition.
As I understand it, in most instances they will not be removed from this country until they are 18, but at that point they will be removed. This seems to me a very harsh provision, penalising some of the most vulnerable asylum seekers that there can be: children.
There are two other amendments to Motions to do with children, Motion J1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, and Motion K1 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. Both are good and both are concerned with the length of time that a child might have to stay in detention. They seek to limit that to fewer days and I shall want to support them both. They do not go as far as my Motion E1, which is much more comprehensive and a much better way of protecting the rights of children. However, we have to be realistic and I shall certainly give my full support to Motions J1 and K1.
I have thought about this at length and had quite detailed discussions with my colleagues. The point is that we, of course, want to support Motions that have the best chance of making the Commons think again. I was persuaded that the Motions in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester probably have a better chance of making the Commons think again than something coming from me, even if my Motion is, with all due respect, better. I therefore feel that the right thing to do is to support a Motion tabled by a Conservative and a Member from the Bishops’ Bench, because they are more likely to persuade the Government. They do not have to persuade the Minister but they are more likely to persuade Members of the Commons. It is in that spirit that I have spoken to Motion E1, but I shall in due course be very keen to support the Motions I have referred to. I will not therefore press Motion E1 to a vote, but I shall certainly vote for the other Motions.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, as ever, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, was ahead of me, and clearly I should address the amendments in this group. I have already moved Motion E, which is:
“That this House do not insist on its Amendment 8.”
With the leave of the House, I shall speak also to Motions J, K, L, M and N.
The Government have considered carefully the concerns raised in your Lordships’ House about the detention of unaccompanied children and pregnant women. We recognise the sensitivities around the detention of these cohorts and, accordingly, the Government have brought forward amendments in lieu, to which the Commons has agreed.
Regarding the detention of pregnant women, Amendments 38A to 38E are wholly in line with those tabled on Report by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and my noble friend Lady Sugg. These amendments preserve the existing 72-hour time limit on the detention of pregnant women. As now, this 72-hour time limit would be extendable to an absolute maximum of one week, provided there is ministerial authorisation in place for the extension. It is important to note that, as per the existing Section 60 provision, this time limit will apply only where an immigration officer or the Secretary of State, as the case may be, is satisfied that the woman is pregnant. I trust that these amendments will be welcomed on all sides of the House.
On the detention of unaccompanied children, the challenge we received in the House of Commons was that in enabling a person to apply for First-tier Tribunal immigration bail after 28 days of detention, the Bill did not differentiate between adults and unaccompanied children, and there needed to be judicial oversight of the detention of unaccompanied children much earlier in the process. Amendments 36A and 36B, agreed by the Commons, do just that. They enable the First-tier Tribunal to review the detention of an unaccompanied child after eight days, where the detention is for the purposes of removal. The eight-day period aligns with the existing framework governing immigration bail for those detained at ports and the eight-day period for making a suspensive claim under the Bill.
I again assure my noble friend Lady Mobarik and other noble Lords that any period of detention for unaccompanied children will be the shortest possible. Where there is doubt that a person is indeed aged under 18, as they claim to be, they will be treated as a child while an age assessment is undertaken. Such a person will be detained in age-appropriate accommodation, as the law already provides. This is provided for by the Detention Centre Rules 2001, made under Section 153 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Rule 11 provides:
“Detained persons aged under 18 and families will be provided with accommodation suitable to their needs”.
If no such accommodation is available, an unaccompanied child will not be detained and will be transferred to a local authority instead as soon as possible. I hope this provides the assurances that my noble friend has been seeking.
The Commons has proposed no change to the Bill in response to my noble friend’s Amendment 33, which relates to the detention of families. We believe this amendment would put children at risk, as well as significantly weakening our ability to remove people from the UK, in accordance with the duty provided for in Clause 2. Such a change would incentivise unscrupulous individuals to co-opt unaccompanied children into a bogus family unit to escape detention. This presents very real safeguarding risks for those children. I hope my noble friend, having secured an important change to the Bill in respect of the detention of unaccompanied children, will be content not to pursue her Amendment 33 any further.
I turn to Motion M and the amendments originally tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, which sought to reinstate the existing Hardial Singh principles. Here again the Commons has agreed with the Government that the changes should be made to the existing legislation and that Clause 11 should stand. The Hardial Singh principles provide, among other things, that a person may be detained only for a period that is reasonable in all the circumstances and that if, before the expiry of the reasonable period, it becomes apparent that the Home Secretary will not be able to examine, effect removal or grant leave within a reasonable period, that person’s detention should not continue. The Government continue to take the view that it is for the Home Secretary, not the courts, to decide such matters as she will be in full possession of the relevant facts and best placed to decide whether continued detention is reasonable in all the circumstances. As I say, the Commons has endorsed this approach, and I hope that the noble Lord, having achieved some significant changes to other aspects of the Bill, will be content to agree Motion M.
Motion N relates to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham’s Amendment 50 to Clause 16. This relates to the Secretary of State’s power to direct a local authority in England to cease accommodating an unaccompanied child and to transfer the child into Home Office-provided accommodation. The amendment would limit the power such that it can be exercised only where the transfer would be in the best interests of the child.
We all accept that the best interests of the child is a very important consideration. That is why the Secretary of State is already required, under Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children when exercising her immigration functions. In exercising the power in Clause 16, the Home Office will continue to comply with the Section 55 duty. I should also emphasise again that we expect to exercise the power in Clause 16 in only limited circumstances —for example, in advance of returning an unaccompanied child to a parent in their home country.
Finally, I can deal briefly with Motion E, given that this covers similar ground to Motion F, which we have already debated. As I said, it remains the Government’s contention that declaring such claims to be inadmissible is a core part of the scheme provided for in the Bill. The Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, would incentivise the people smugglers to prioritise young people, putting more lives at risk and splitting families. I am sure that the noble Lord would not wish to see this.
The Government have listened to the concerns raised by noble Lords about the Bill’s provisions relating to detention and the Commons has agreed significant changes. I hope, on this basis, that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, my noble friend Lady Mobarik and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester would be content to agree Motions J, K and L. Where the Commons has disagreed with your Lordships’ amendments to Clauses 4, 11 and 16, I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Dubs and Lord Carlile, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester will be minded to accept that verdict and agree Motions E, M and N.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for his support for my Motion K1, even though I suspect we would both prefer his stronger Motion. I also welcome the government amendments that would allow an unaccompanied child to seek bail after eight days if they have been detained for removal.
I struggle to see why similar rules should not apply to all children. Hence, Motion K1 seeks to rectify the unreasoned omission of children who are with their families. It proposes a 24-hour extension to the current statutory 72-hour time limit for detention of children with families. Hence, the detention of these children would not be indefinite but be for no more than 96 hours or, if a Minister personally approved it, for no more than seven days. This seems a fair and reasonable change and I urge the Government to seriously reflect on it. I really cannot see that it is morally justified not to have equal provisions for children with families and those who are alone; one child is not different from another.
It remains the fact that the institutional nature of detention affects both the physical and mental development of the child and leads to their significant emotional and psychological regression. These impacts, which were witnessed often in children prior to 2010, were not limited to unaccompanied children. All children suffered under a regime which this Government are now proposing to reintroduce without limit for unaccompanied children. I cannot accept that it is right to be prepared to lock up these children for an indefinite period, simply because they happen to arrive with families, when we know the grave consequences. The evidence has not changed. How can it now suddenly be tolerable?
Baroness Mobarik (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Motion J1 in my name. First, I am grateful to the Minister for his invitation to discuss this matter last week and for acknowledging the particular vulnerabilities of children who arrive in this country alone. But, having carefully read the Government’s Amendments 36A and 36B in lieu, I think it is clear that the Bill would contain no absolute time limit or safeguards on the powers to detain unaccompanied children. Permitting a tribunal to grant bail to only some detained unaccompanied children, after eight days, is not the same as an actual time limit on detentions for all unaccompanied children. They would still be a great many unaccompanied children who could be detained without any time limit and to whom the First-tier Tribunal could not grant bail for 28 days. Therefore, I would like to provide the other place with an opportunity to reconsider this matter.
If an unaccompanied child is detained under any of the new powers in the Bill, under the amendments I now propose, that child cannot be detained for more than 72 hours. If in regulations the Home Secretary wishes to specify a time limit for detaining unaccompanied children for less than 72 hours, then of course she has that prerogative. However, a matter as fundamental as the ultimate period for which an unaccompanied child can be held in detention should not be left to mere regulations or verbal assurance. It must be stated in the Bill. Overturning the legal safeguards and time limits introduced—and I say once again, under a Conservative Prime Minister and Conservative Home Secretary—and detaining children without any stated time limit serves neither British nor Conservative values. Therefore, I will divide the House on this, so that we may provide the Commons with the opportunity to think again carefully about the powers created by this Bill. I ask the House to approve Motion J1.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, with reference to Motion L, I welcome the government amendments, which have the same effect as our original amendments of restoring the status quo ante with regard to pregnant women.
Before my round of thanks, I have one query from the lawyer who has kindly been advising us. He says that his only concern is that they are a separate provision for the new powers in paragraph 16(2C) and proposed new subsection (2A) of Section 62 rather than reapplying the protection of Section 60. The reason that this matters is that for the purposes of the time limit, the period of detention under the old detention powers would not be aggregated with the period of detention under the new detention powers. However, now, in theory, a pregnant woman could be detained for up to seven days under the old detention powers and then for another seven days under the new detention powers. Could the Minister confirm that this is not the intention and that the powers would not be used in this way?
I turn to my thanks. First, I pay tribute to Women for Refugee Women, in particular Gemma Lousley, for all their invaluable work in pressing this amendment, and also to David Neale of Garden Court Chambers for his pro bono legal advice. I thank all noble Lords around the House who have supported the amendments by adding their names, speaking in support, voting in support or deliberately abstaining. I am particularly grateful to those Members—largely women, I think—on the Government Benches who could not bring themselves to support the Government on this. That there was so much support for the amendments on the Government Benches is largely down to the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, who I think of as a noble friend. She has been tireless, both behind the scenes and on the Floor of the House, as was recognised by the Immigration Minister yesterday.
The preservation of the time limits on the detention of pregnant women in recognition of the likely health impact of the original proposal to remove them represents one small beacon of light in what otherwise continues to be the gloom of a punitive Bill that will do untold harm. The government Motion was described on both sides of the Commons yesterday as a no-brainer. Nevertheless, it would be churlish not to recognise that the Government have listened on this issue at least, and I thank them for doing so.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Motion N1 in my name, which is just ahead of the Motion in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. This is a rather different point; it relates to a situation where there may be a stand-off between the Home Office and the local authority.
Picture a child who is either being accommodated under Part III of the Children Act or for whom a judge or magistrate has made a care order which the local authority is complying with, and the Home Office, according to Clause 16, wishes the child to be removed in order to send them back to their parents or to some other place. Although it said to use it only occasionally, it does not say in Clause 16 that the local authority should be consulted or, rather more importantly, should actually consent. In particular, if there is a care order, that is an order of the court. As far as I can see, it would be very difficult for the Home Office just to pick the child up and take them away where there is a court order saying that the child must live with the family, or whoever it may be, arranged by the local authority.
Quite simply, what I am seeking is that the Secretary of State should bear in mind all these things and not just consult the local authority but gain its consent to the removal of the child from its care. It is a very simple proposition.
What I would like from the Minister is either an assurance that the Secretary of State will do that, or that he will take it back to the Home Office for the Secretary of State to consider and agree to it. I do not propose to put this issue to the House, but it is very important that the Home Office’s interaction with local authorities under Clause 16 be clarified and that the Home Office recognise the fact that it cannot just remove a child if it is contrary to the Children Act.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, on the narrow issue of the detention of pregnant women, I thank the Government and the Minister for listening to and considering carefully the arguments made in your Lordships’ House and acting on them. Thanks to the many who made the case, and the government amendment, the existing protection of a 72-hour time limit remains in place. That is a small change, but it will make a big difference to the women in question, and for that I am very grateful.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, on these Benches, we support Motions E1, J1, K1, N1 and N2. We welcome the Government’s Motion L on time-limiting detention for women who are pregnant. This suite of Motions is about the depriving of liberty of some of the most vulnerable people who reach these shores and, in particular, the welfare of children.
Government Motion J is narrow, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, said. It is a limited concession, and as Tim Loughton pointed out in the other place yesterday, unaccompanied children’s arrivals are to be treated the same way as adult arrivals in terms of their detention for initial processing, and the amendment proposes nothing for unaccompanied children detained for those purposes.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, said, for those who are deemed in detention for removal, there is no automatic condition of eight days; there is a condition that, at that point, a child can ask for bail. Just think of a 10 year-old child in detention: how will they have the support to be able to ask for bail? It is for that reason that, if the noble Baroness moves Motion J1 to a vote, these Benches will definitely support her. The same is true for the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester’s Motion on unaccompanied children.
I support Motions N1 and N2, and particularly the points made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. Throughout the passage of the Bill, these Benches have asked on a number of occasions, as have other noble Lords throughout the House, what the role is of the corporate parent—the local authority—under Clause 16. To date, the Minister still has not answered that question. It is really important that the Minister says something from the Dispatch Box; otherwise, this will end up in the court, given the contradiction between the Bill and the provisions in the Children Act 1989, particularly Sections 17 and 47. That is why it is important that the assurance the noble and learned Baroness asked for be addressed by the Minister now. We believe that Motions E1, J1, K1, N1 and N2, if put to the House—particularly Motions J1 and K1—will add a little more humanity, kindness and compassion to the Bill.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the Motion in the name of noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, as I had put my name to a similar amendment on Report.
We should not take for granted the decades of work done by many in your Lordships’ House, and others, to put together a child protection system that is well understood. In her most recent email of today, the Children’s Commissioner stated that the local authority must have responsibility for the safety and well-being of children in all settings, including when they are detained.
The child protection system that I have outlined is like a jigsaw: it is well put together and each of the bodies involved knows what its role currently is. That includes many bodies, such as the police, the local authority, schools, the NHS and, at government level, the Department for Education. It is noteworthy that in many of the legal cases taken by children’s rights organisations, the main submissions, if not the only submissions, that the court has wanted to hear are from the Department for Education, not the Home Office.
What we have with this jigsaw puzzle of people responsible is a Home Office that seems to have taken out some of the pieces of that child protection system, and we are not sure how they fit together again. Since this is an area where retrospectivity will apply to those children in hotels—they are now in hotels again—I hope that there will be clarity, at last, from my noble friend the Minister as to how the pieces of that well-understood jigsaw will be put back together, so that everybody knows what their role is. We know from history that if people are confused about their role in a child safeguarding situation, information, communication and the welfare of children themselves can fall between those gaps.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate and I thank my noble friend Lord Dubs for the way that he introduced his amendment to Motion E. He has been extremely practical and political, if I may use that word, in the way that he proposes to deal with the suite of amendments in this group. I agree with him that the two Motions in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, Motions J1 and K1, stand the best chance of making the House of Commons think again. On that basis, from these Benches we will be supporting the noble Baroness and the right reverend Prelate if they choose to put their Motions to a vote.
I want to comment briefly on the contributions of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, and on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. In a sense, they are talking from a local authority point of view. I too got the email from the Children’s Commissioner today; she is absolutely right to point to the jigsaw of child protection, which is very much overseen by local authorities. As she rightly pointed out, retrospectivity will apply to those children because that is the point which the Government did not concede on.
Responsibility is key to trying to resolve this as clearly as possible. We hope that the Minister will be able to say something clearer, but the real point is that if it is not, it will be resolved in the courts. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, made that point and it is a very fair one. I understand that the noble and learned Baroness will not be pressing her amendment to a vote. Nevertheless, the Minister should give as clear an explanation as possible of how this matter will be looked at. For the purposes of this group, we will support Motions J1 and K1.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I thank the House for the contributions to this debate. I will focus, if I may, on three points and address first the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on aggregating detention periods. Noble Lords will recall that a question was asked whether the 72-hour limit for pregnant women could be evaded by detaining a pregnant woman first under the powers in the Bill, and then under the powers in the Immigration Act, or vice versa. From a practical point of view, any pregnant women subject to the Clause 2 duty would be detained under the new detention powers provided for in Clause 10. I assure the noble Baroness that we would not detain pregnant women under existing powers then switch to new detention powers, or vice versa, in order to double the detention period.
I thank my noble friend Lady Sugg for her kind remarks. I am gratified for the receipt from Members of the House for the position which we have arrived at in relation to pregnant women.
I turn to the issues raised by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for whom I have very great admiration. They were raised also by the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Ponsonby, and my noble friend Lady Berridge in relation to Motion N1.
Amendment 50B would afford local authorities influence over whether the Home Secretary can utilise her powers. I am afraid we do not agree that her powers should be fettered in this way if a local authority simply does not consent. It would also create additional decision-making burdens for local authorities and could have unintended consequences—for example, if local authorities faced legal challenges in respect of their decisions. The Home Office, of course, already works closely with local authorities on matters concerning unaccompanied children and will continue to do so.
I turn to the question raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and Motion N2. The Home Office considers that Amendment 50C, tabled by the right reverend Prelate, is unnecessary. That is so because of Section 55 of the 2009 Act, which already requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the interests of children as a primary factor in immigration decisions affecting them. I assure the House that, in making decisions and in devising policy guidance under the Bill, the Home Office will continue to comply with the Section 55 duty.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord German, and my noble friend Lady Berridge, the Home Office does not have, and therefore, for clarity, cannot discharge, duties under Part III of the Children Act 1989. It is for the local authority where an unaccompanied child is located to consider its duties under the Children Act 1989. There is nothing in the Bill which changes this position and local authorities will be expected to meet their statutory obligations to unaccompanied children from the date of arrival. The relevant duties under the Children Act 1989 sit with the local authority in which the young person is physically present. Accommodation of unaccompanied children by the Home Office does not change the obligations of any local authority in respect of assessment and the provision of services and support, including, where appropriate, suitable accommodation.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and all noble Lords who have contributed. They have covered a number of aspects, all under the heading of this debate. I am not persuaded by the Minister’s arguments that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, are not totally right in what they are saying. I very much hope the Minister will say something more positive to support them.
I have already indicated that I do not wish to press Motion E1, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 9, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 9A.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion F. I beg to move.
Motion F1 (as an amendment to Motion F)
Lord German
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 9B in lieu—
(3A) From the point at which the provisions of subsection (3) apply to a person, no other provision made by or by virtue of this Act applies to that person.
(3B) For the purpose of calculating the period of six months under subsection (3), any period during which the person cannot be removed by virtue of section 46 (suspensive claims: duty to remove) is to be disregarded.””
Lord German (LD)
I beg to move Motion F1 and wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 23, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 23A.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion G. I beg to move.
Motion G1 (as an amendment to Motion G)
Lord Etherton
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 23B in lieu—
“Restrictions on removal destinations: LGBT and other persons
(1) Where the Secretary of State is required by section 2(1) to make arrangements for the removal of a person from the United Kingdom—
(a) trans men and women must not be removed to Brazil;
(b) LGBT persons must not be removed to Gambia, Ghana, Jamaica, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Mauritius, Nigeria, Rwanda or Sierra Leone;
(c) no person may be removed to a territory or country listed in Schedule 1 (countries or territories to which a person may be removed) if the exceptional circumstances specified in section 5(5)(b) apply to that territory or country;
(d) no person may be removed to Rwanda until the conclusion of all litigation concerning the lawfulness of arrangements for removal to that country.
(2) the Secretary of State may by regulations amend subsection (1) to—
(a) dd or remove a country or territory, or part of a country or territory, in order to apply relevant decisions of courts and tribunals operating in the United Kingdom and having regard to decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and any other material change of circumstances;
(b) reflect changes made to Schedule 1 by regulations made under section 6.””
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 30, 32 and 34, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 34A.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion H.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 31, 35 and 36 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 36A and 36B in lieu.
“(3A) A person who is being detained under paragraph 16(2C)(d)(iv) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 or section 62(2A)(d)(iv) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (detention of unaccompanied child for purposes of removal) must not be granted immigration bail by the First-tier Tribunal until after the earlier of—
(a) the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the person’s detention under any provision of paragraph 16(2C) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 or section 62(2A) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 began, and
(b) the end of the period of 8 days beginning with the date on which the person’s detention under paragraph 16(2C)(d)(iv) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 or section 62(2A)(d)(iv) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 began.
(3B) A person who is being detained under—
(a) paragraph 16(2C)(a), (b), (c) or (d)(i) to (iii) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971, or
(b) section 62(2A)(a), (b), (c) or (d)(i) to (iii) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, must not be granted immigration bail by the First-tier Tribunal until after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the person’s detention under paragraph 16(2C) of that Schedule or section 62(2A) of that Act began.
(3C) Where a person is detained under a provision of the Immigration Act 1971 and then (without being released) under a provision of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, or vice versa, the periods referred to in sub-paragraphs (3A) and (3B) begin with the date on which the person was first detained under the relevant provisions of either of those Acts.”
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion J.
Motion J1 (as an amendment to Motion J)
Baroness Mobarik
Leave out from “36” to end and insert “, do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 36A and 36B in lieu, and do propose Amendments 36C and 36D in lieu of Amendments 31, 35 and 36—
“(2E) If the person being detained under sub-paragraph (2C) is an unaccompanied child, then the person may not be detained under that sub-paragraph for more than a period of 72 hours.
(2EA) Where a person is detained under a provision of the Immigration Act 1971 and then (without being released) under a provision of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, or vice versa, the period referred to in sub-paragraph (2E) begins with the point at which the person was first detained under the relevant provisions of either of those Acts.
(2EB) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, specify time limits of less than 72 hours that apply in relation to the detention of an unaccompanied child under sub-paragraph (2C).”
“(2C) If the person being detained under subsection (2A) is an unaccompanied child, then the person may not be detained under that sub-paragraph for more than a period of 72 hours.
(2CA) Where a person is detained under a provision of the Immigration Act 1971 and then (without being released) under a provision of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, or vice versa, the period referred to in subsection (2C) begins with the point at which the person was first detained under the relevant provisions of either of those Acts.
(2CB) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, specify time limits of less than 72 hours that apply in relation to the detention of an unaccompanied child under subsection (2A).””
Lord Murray of Blidworth
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 33, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 33A.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion K. I beg to move.
Motion K1 (as an amendment to Motion K)
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
Moved by
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 33B to the words so restored to the Bill—
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 37 and 38 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 38A to 38E in lieu.
“(2CA) But if the immigration officer is satisfied that a woman being detained under sub-paragraph (2C) is pregnant, then the woman may not be detained under that sub-paragraph for a period of—
(a) more than 72 hours from the relevant time, or
(b) more than seven days from the relevant time, in a case where the longer period of detention is authorised personally by a Minister of the Crown (within the meaning of the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975).
(2CB) A woman who has been released as a result of sub-paragraph (2CA) may be detained again under sub-paragraph (2C) in accordance with sub-paragraph (2CA).
(2CC) Where a woman being detained under sub-paragraph (2C) has previously been detained under section 62(2A) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and has not been released in between, the definition of “the relevant time” in sub-paragraph (2CD) is to be read as if paragraph (b) referred to the time when the woman was first detained under sub-paragraph (2C) or section 62(2A) of that Act.
(2CD) In sub-paragraphs (2CA) to (2CC)—
“the relevant time” means the later of—
(a) the time at which the immigration officer is first satisfied that the woman is pregnant, and
(b) the time at which the detention under sub-paragraph (2C) begins;
“woman” means a female of any age.”
“(2AA) But if the Secretary of State is satisfied that a woman being detained under subsection (2A) is pregnant, then the woman may not be detained under that subsection for a period of—
(a) more than 72 hours from the relevant time, or
(b) more than seven days from the relevant time, in a case where the longer period of detention is authorised personally by a Minister of the Crown (within the meaning of the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975).
(2AB) A woman who has been released as a result of subsection (2AA) may be detained again under subsection (2A) in accordance with subsection (2AA).
(2AC) Where a woman being detained under subsection (2A) has previously been detained under paragraph 16(2C) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 and has not been released in between, the definition of “the relevant time” in subsection (2AD) is to be read as if paragraph (b) referred to the time when the woman was first detained under subsection (2A) or paragraph 16(2C) of that Schedule to that Act.
(2AD) In subsections (2AA) to (2AC)—
“the relevant time” ” means the later of—
(a) the time at which the Secretary of State is first satisfied that the woman is pregnant, and
(b) the time at which the detention under subsection (2A) begins;
“woman” means a female of any age.”
“(d) paragraph 16(2CA) to (2CD) (limitation on detention of pregnant women).”
“(aa) subsections (2AA) to (2AD) (limitation on detention of pregnant women);”
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion L. I beg to move.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 49A.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion M. I beg to move.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 50, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 50A.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion N. I beg to move.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 56, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 56A.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion P. I beg to move.
Motion P1 (as an amendment to Motion P)
Lord Randall of Uxbridge
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 56B in lieu—
“(3A) If the relevant exploitation took place in the United Kingdom subsection (2) also does not apply in relation to a person—
(a) for a period of 30 days following the making of the decision referred to in subsection (1)(b);
(b) for a further period if the Secretary of State deems it necessary for a victim to establish cooperation with a public authority in connection with an investigation or criminal proceedings in respect of the relevant exploitation; and
(c) on expiration of the period in paragraphs (a) and (b) if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person is cooperating with a public authority in connection with an investigation or criminal proceedings in respect of the relevant exploitation for the duration of those criminal proceedings thereafter.
(3B) Where subsection (3) or (3A) applies in relation to a person the following do not apply in relation to the person—
(a) section 22,
(b) section 23, and
(c) section 24.
(4) In this section—””
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 57, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 57A.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion Q. I beg to move.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 66 and 67, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 67A.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion R. I beg to move.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 73 and 74 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 74A in lieu.
“(2A) Regulations under subsection (1) may not amend subsection (4) of section 38 to remove any example of serious and irreversible harm which is listed in that subsection when this Act is passed.”
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion S. I beg to move.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 90 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 90A, 90B and 90C to the words restored to the Bill by the Commons disagreement to Lords Amendment 90.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion T. I beg to move.
Motion T1 (as an amendment to Motion T)
Baroness Chakrabarti
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 90D to the words so restored to the Bill—
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that Motion T1 is consequential on Motions already passed. I beg to move.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 93, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 93A.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion U. I beg to move.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 95 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 95A and 95B in lieu.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion V. I beg to move.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 102, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 102A.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the debates we have had on safe and legal routes and their importance. As has been stated hitherto, the Government are committed to providing safe and legal routes, and we recognise the United Kingdom’s role in providing protection for those in need.
The United Kingdom has been proud to offer for many years a range of global resettlement routes as part of our safe and legal offer. Our global resettlement schemes offer safety in the United Kingdom to refugees who have been displaced by conflict, violence and persecution, and identified by the UNHCR as the most in need of resettlement. Beside our global schemes, we also offer country-specific safe and legal routes for those from Afghanistan, Hong Kong and Ukraine.
Baroness Stroud
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 102B in lieu—
“Duty to establish safe and legal routes
(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the publication of the report required by section 59(1), make regulations specifying additional safe and legal routes.
(2) In subsection (1), a “safe and legal route” means a route which allows relevant persons to come to the United Kingdom lawfully from abroad.
(3) In subsection (2), a “relevant person” is—
(a) a person who, if they were in the United Kingdom, would be a refugee within the meaning of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28th July 1951 and the Protocol to that Convention,
(b) a person who, if they were in the United Kingdom, would be eligible for a grant of humanitarian protection in accordance with the immigration rules, or
(c) a person who, if they were in the United Kingdom, could not lawfully be removed from the United Kingdom by virtue of Article 3 or 4 of the Human Rights Convention.””
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, I brought a variation of this amendment to the House on Report. I refer to my entry in the register of interests. I said in that debate that this amendment is very simple. It is designed purely to place a duty on the Government to do what we have just heard they intend to do anyway—introduce safe and legal routes. This should therefore be a simple amendment to respond to. The moral credibility of the entire Bill depends on the existence of safe and legal routes. The basis on which we are disestablishing illegal and unsafe routes is that we are committed to creating legal and safe routes. That therefore needs to be reflected in the Bill.
For the purpose of clarity, I will take two minutes to lay out both the framework that sits alongside this Motion already and why the Government can feel confident in accepting it. First, as we have just heard, the Government have total freedom to undertake consultation with local authorities in any way they choose to ascertain the capacity that exists for local authorities to welcome refugees and asylum seekers through safe and legal routes. This is already committed to in the Bill.
Secondly, the Government then draft their own report, which they have already committed to doing by the end of January. This is already committed to in the Bill. Even then, the number of people who would be able to come via those safe and legal routes would be subject to a cap, as decided and voted on by this House. This is already in the Bill. This is the framework under which this Motion would sit. Its purpose, therefore, is that, within those limits and that context—all of which are already committed to in the Bill—the Government would then have a duty to do what they say they want to do: create safe and legal routes. The lack of a substantial commitment in primary legislation to this end is a serious omission and one that this amendment gives us an opportunity to address.
I am grateful to the Minister for making the statement that the Government intend to outline new safe and legal routes in the January report and implement them as soon as is practicable—in any event, by the end of 2024. However, if this really is the case, surely the Government would want to place it in the Bill, too, so that it cannot get lost with the passage of the time and electoral cycles, as has happened with the consultation, the publication of the report and the structure of the cap. Surely, at the very least, the Government would want to place a duty on themselves to have brought in safe and legal routes no later than the end of 2024.
Let me turn to the timeframe that has been introduced to this revised version of the Motion. I have chosen a timeline of three months after the publication of the Government’s report on safe and legal routes for three reasons: first, this will be nine months after the enactment of the legislation, which is more than enough time to develop and implement a serious proposal and respect the proper process to which the Minister referred; secondly, it is enough time for the Bill to have had effect in stopping the small boats if it is going to do so; and, thirdly, it will ensure that the commitment as set out in legislation should not cut across a general election or purdah next year. As I mentioned on Report, if the Minister would like to propose putting an alternative timeline in the Bill, I would welcome that conversation, but I have not yet heard of an alternative legally binding timeframe from the Minister.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. For all the talk of safe and legal routes, we have reached ping-pong with no commitment to them as part of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I will support the noble Baroness if she presses her amendment to the Motion. I wish to make two points very briefly, but before doing so I declare an interest. I returned last night from the Horn of Africa, where, as I am sure the Minister will be aware, many of the discussions I had with parliamentary colleagues from that region related to this Bill and the damage we are doing to our international reputation.
My first point relates to a letter that the noble Lord, Lord Murray, sent me after the conclusion of Report stage. I thank him for it. It referred to one of the existing schemes that the Government operate. It is an uncapped scheme—the UK resettlement scheme. In Committee and on Report I asked for clarification of whether the Government’s uncapped scheme has, by virtue of ministerial discretion, in effect become capped.
That scheme, which is global, is now being prioritised only for those from Afghanistan, in effect closing routes from all other countries that we have debated in this debate so far. It took until the 10th paragraph of the Minister’s letter to say, effectively, that I was correct. He said:
“As a result, we are necessarily prioritising those who have been referred by the UNHCR and who are already awaiting resettlement”.
That means that we have closed the safe and legal routes that we are seeking to expand, as the noble Baroness has argued for.
The Advocate-General for Scotland suggests that the Government should not be criticised for having a delay. The outstanding question is: why do the Government not have a baseline capacity now that any safe and legal routes would operate under, and what funding would be available to it? Which countries are the Government considering as candidate countries for new safe and legal routes? The Government’s opaqueness suggests that they do not have a plan that would be ready on the conclusion of the Bill, so it is necessary that we put in statute the guarantee that we will have these routes.
The second point I wish to ask the Minister for clarification on is the use of overseas development assistance. The Government have used overseas development assistance to score all the budgets for those to be resettled under the Bill—indeed, for asylum under all the schemes for safe and legal routes. This is at a cost of £1.9 billion of ODA, which has been taken away from other development projects in many of the candidate countries from which we are seeking safe and legal routes.
I understand that the Bill, and the way it has been drafted, means that the Home Office will no longer be able to score any of those individuals who will be deemed inadmissible under overseas development assistance. That means that, under the current budget, the Home Office itself would have to find up to £1.9 billion of expenditure which could not be scored against overseas development assistance. Under the Development Assistance Committee rules, the Government are now placing on the taxpayer inordinate sums of money for a Bill that cannot be operated and is inoperable. Will the Advocate-General confirm to me now that that is the case and the measures under this Bill will mean that the current way that the Government are funding those to be resettled will no longer be able to be used and there is an enormous black hole in the funding of this scheme?
Regardless of the answer, we support the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud. We need the guarantee because, so far, the Government have been woeful in offering any reassurance.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I would just like to say how much these Benches support the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, for the reasons she outlined in her introduction. If she seeks to test the opinion of the House, we will certainly support her.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, we do not characterise the time taken properly to consider the identification and implementation of safe and legal routes as being in any sense a delay. Rather, it is a proper, considered application of thought to make sure that the measures will work correctly. Beyond that point, I have nothing further to add.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
I would like to test the will of the House.
Lord Bellamy
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 103, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 103A.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, in moving Motion X, with the leave of the House, I will also speak to Motion Y.
Motion X relates to the function of the National Crime Agency. On Report, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, indicated that he had brought forward his amendment to generate a debate about the role of the NCA in tackling organised immigration crime. That debate has been most useful, but on the substance of the amendment I hope that your Lordships will accept that it is not in fact needed, as the Commons has decided.
As regards proposed new Section 6A of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which is now proposed in Amendment 103B, I respectfully suggest that the NCA’s annual report and annual plan already set out the range of activities in which it is already engaged to tackle the cross-channel people-smuggling gangs. Again, this is an unnecessary addition to the 2013 Act.
Finally on this aspect, I gently say that this here is, after all, the legislature. We are not the Executive, and I would respectfully suggest that the legislature should be slow to overmanage the independent executive agencies, when there is no compelling reason to do so in this case. That is the Government’s position on Motion X.
As regards Motion Y, the Government are of course grateful to have the further opportunity to discuss Lords Amendment 104 with the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Government can wholeheartedly concur with the sentiments behind this amendment. While our immediate focus is on enacting this Bill, we also need to take a longer-term view if we are to tackle refugee crises and human trafficking. That is what the Government are doing. The Government entirely accept that these challenges cannot be solved by the UK alone and that we need to work collaboratively with our international partners if we are to achieve our shared goals.
The interconnected nature of migration and the need to work collectively is why the Government are already working with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and other international partners. Noble Lords will be aware that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has secured agreements quite recently with France, Italy, Albania and the EU to work together to address illegal migration, through a combination of operational, diplomatic and development-led interventions. The UK has every incentive to continue to develop that work at international level to address the international problems of migration.
Against that background, the Government’s position, while accepting fully the very good, worthy and wise intentions behind the amendment proposed by the most reverend Primate, is that this amendment is unnecessary. If I may, I again respectfully and humbly question whether it is a proper use of legislation to provide in law how a Government—it would be any Governments over the next 10 years—should set out their policy on working with international partners over a 10-year period. Government policies change, adapt and respond to circumstances. What those policies should be is a matter of public debate and political debate.
In the Government’s view, it would be a somewhat unusual use of legislation to set this out alone for migration. Why not do it for defence, health or education? This is particularly where the Government are expected to set out their strategy for working diplomatically with international partners in such a circumstances, unless it is really required. But in the Government’s submission, with all respect to those who support and have proposed this amendment, it is not necessary because the Government are well aware of the need to develop a strategy and co-operate with international partners, as I have just said.
Lord Coaker
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 103B in lieu—
“Organised immigration crime enforcement
(1) The Crime and Courts Act 2013 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 1 (the National Crime Agency), after subsection (10) insert—
“(10A) The NCA has a specific function to combat organised crime where the purpose of that crime is to enable the illegal entry of a person into the United Kingdom via the English Channel (the “organised immigration crime function”).”
(3) After section 6 (duty to publish information), insert—
“6A Duties in relation to organised immigration crime
(1) The Director General must, in addition to other reporting requirements under this Part, make arrangements for publishing information about the NCA’s progress in fulfilling the organised immigration crime function.
(2) Reports under subsection (1) must be made at least once every six months but may be made more frequently if the Director General deems it appropriate.
(3) Reports under subsection (1) must be submitted to the Secretary of State.
(4) Reports under subsection (1) may, if the Director General deems it appropriate, include recommendations regarding potential additional measures in relation to the NCA’s organised immigration crime function.
(5) The Secretary of State must, as soon as practicable, lay before both Houses of Parliament—
(a) a summary of each report under subsection (1), and
(b) the Secretary of State’s response to the report.””
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, before I speak to my own amendment, I would like to say that we very much support the most reverend Primate’s Motion Y1. Contrary to what the Minister has said, it gives us a great and important opportunity to discuss these global issues, which matter so much. Some of you will have listened to Nick Robinson on the “Today” programme—he is brilliant, of course—who highlighted some of the issues that have emerged in various areas of the world. The most reverend Primate gives us the opportunity to do that, and we very much support his Motion.
I do not intend, given the hour, to speak for long to my Motion. In the whole discussion we have had on the Bill, my proposed amendment is the only one that deals with criminal gangs. This is one of the most important ways to tackle the problem of illegal migration. Contrary to what the Minister has just told us, it is part and parcel of what Parliament should be doing—legislating in the face of what the Government themselves have described as a national emergency. The full power of the state is required to tackle this issue. It is only right that Parliament put forward amendments and Motions and ask itself and the agencies that work for the state whether enough is being done. That is what my Motion seeks to do.
To be honest, I could not believe it when the Minister said that there was no compelling reason to do this. In the last few months, I have not heard anything different from the Government about the crisis unfolding across the channel, with hundreds of people—a record number just a few days ago—coming across the channel every day. Frankly, there is every compelling reason to do something to tackle the criminal gangs who are exploiting some of the most vulnerable.
One alternative we have to the Government’s proposal concerns the international nature of the crisis, which the most reverend Primate will no doubt refer to. In my Motion I refer to the need for not only action by the National Crime Agency but international co-operation of law enforcement and police forces across Europe and beyond if we are to tackle this problem. I hope that your Lordships will feel able to accept my Motion, because there is a continuing need to ask the Government whether we are doing enough to tackle and break up the criminal gangs and to get to the really big figures who organise this business on a massive scale and exploit the weakness and vulnerability of people across the continent and beyond. Just by demanding that the Government answer that, we can get some of the answers we deserve. I look forward to the Minister’s reply, and I beg to move.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, and to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for what he said. Like him, I will be brief.
Immigration and asylum, as the long series of debates on this Bill has shown, is an extraordinarily divisive issue. Speaking as someone who has been deeply embedded in east Kent for more than a decade now, I know from experience the extent to which communities are divided and individuals are torn between their desire to do what they know is right and care for those arriving, and their apprehension about the impact on local communities. One understands both those feelings very well.
When this amendment was tabled in its previous form last week, it produced considerable reconciliation and unity across the House. It was agreed that this is a massive, international issue on a generational basis and that tackling it needs profound thinking on a long-term basis. Legislation and strategy must be fitted to the problem, not the problem to the legislation. That is not how it works. For some things we do not debate strategy or have strategy on the face of a Bill, but it is impossible to imagine that we can solve a problem of this kind by taking short-term view after short-term view. It is essential that the solutions, as we go forward, bring together the whole of politics, all sides of both Houses, and unite our country instead of using this as a wedge issue to divide things.
This is a moment of reconciliation and an opportunity for profound long-term thought. This happens with climate change, on which there is legislation about 2050, never mind 10 years’ time; it happens with defence, where documents are produced that look at our proposals out to 2030; it happens with spending plans, where we have three-year committed views on spending because we know that you cannot do it in 12-month sections.
Secondly, this provides accountability. I could not agree more that a legislature is not operational, but it is the place in which the operational Executive is held to account, never mind which party it is. That will be as inconvenient to any other party in government as it is to the current party and there will be moments, if another party is in government, when it will not like it. That is the nature of our constitution. This provides for accountability; Ministers and Secretaries of State must come to both Houses and allow their view of the world to be tested, challenged, informed and improved.
Thirdly, it enables flexibility. The strategy shifts and changes as circumstances shift and change. Most of your Lordships will know Keynes’s remark:
“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?”
Of course we will need to change our mind as time goes on—if the boats are stopped, if new threats emerge to do with migration and if there are new issues.
The 10-year strategy will enable the whole country, united, to understand where we are going, what the sacrifices are and how they will be mitigated. This is not a party-political issue but one in which we must work together: if we work separately, we will fall separately. Finally, it puts us back into leadership globally. Without leadership, we cannot lead as this country should do and as we have so often shown we can. This is an international issue. We have enormous clout. It does not involve only the UNHCR, who I think are among the most extraordinary people I meet, but so many other groups. We need to see how that leadership is being exercised.
If this Motion passes this evening or if I have eloquently persuaded the Minister to stand up and say that he has changed his mind—I am not that hopeful—there are, of course, other ways of doing it. Before we come back for the next bit of ping-pong, I would be very happy and open to talk about alternative, but solid and dependable, ways of achieving the same ends for our country: reconciliation over this issue, accountability for this and future governments, flexibility in strategy, and leadership in the world. There may be other ways, and I am very open to those. I beg to move.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, as someone who rarely goes to bed after 11 pm, I will be incredibly brief. I will comment on both propositions and give my support to my noble friend Lord Coaker and to the most reverent Primate.
We reached an agreement with the French 21 years ago that tackled organised criminality, not its victims. For a time, it was successful. The business model changed, and we must change with it. The National Crime Agency, working with its counterparts in France, could do a similar job, with the Government negotiating with the Government of France. We could pay for a licensing scheme in France that would make it a criminal offence for anyone to purchase, transport or sell a boat without a licence. Our agencies and theirs could then work together to tackle the organised criminal fraternity, who are bringing such misery.
In support of the most reverend Primate, if we ever needed a long-term strategy of 10 years rather than 10 months, one geared not to a general election but to solving a problem, and to dealing with it internationally, on a long-term basis, we need it now. That is why this House should support both propositions.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, today the Government heralded a reduction in the vacancies in the social care sector. This was achieved mainly through the arrival of 70,000 overseas workers in the last year, while the Bill tries to stop 45,000 people desperately seeking sanctuary in the UK. We on these Benches support Motions X1 and Y1. In a Bill devoid of any measures that target people smugglers, Motion X1 is the very minimum required. It is remarkable that stopping the boats is one of the Prime Minister’s five priorities, and yet it is not one of the Home Secretary’s strategic priorities for the National Crime Agency.
The most reverend Primate has made a compelling case in Motion Y1. The Government have set out in legislation the need for a climate change strategy. But, again, on one of the Prime Minister’s five top priorities, there is no need to set out in legislation the need for a strategy in relation to the movement of refugees and human trafficking. How can the Minister possibly say that that is a consistent position for the Government to take? We on these Benches will support both these Motions if the noble Lord and the most reverend Primate decide to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, if I may I will first deal briefly with Motion X1 and the National Crime Agency. It is important to remind the House that the Government have a dedicated multi-agency task force on organised immigration crime, which includes the NCA. The task force is committed to dismantling organised immigration crime groups internationally, including the criminal networks which facilitate people smuggling. In partial response, at least, to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, the task force is active in 17 countries worldwide, working with partners to build intelligence and prosecution capability.
The Government’s position, and indeed the position of the House of Commons, is that there is no need for further legislative measures to support the effectiveness of the National Crime Agency. That is the reason why the Government cannot support Motion X1. As regards Motion Y1, no one could have listened to the speeches tonight without recognising the power and sincerity with which they were made. The Government are all for reconciliation and accountability; that is a matter, in the Government’s view, for the normal political process. The House of Commons’ view, as expressed very recently and by a substantial majority, is that Amendment Y1 is unnecessary, although I am sure the sentiment behind it is shared by all of us.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank those who have spoken in this brief debate. I thank my noble friend Lord Blunkett for his support and one or two of the ideas he brought forward, which highlight the point I am trying to make. That I have tabled an amendment has caused my noble friend Lord Blunkett to put before your Lordships the idea of licensing the boats. That may be a good idea, there may be better ideas or there may be additional ideas, but at least that was an idea that came forward.
The Minister himself has given the House a couple of facts about 17 countries working together; that has never come up in our discussions on the Bill. We need to continue to ask questions of the Government and to keep making demands of them; through that, public policy will be improved. The very least we can do is for at least one part of the Bill to concentrate on the criminal gangs who are causing such misery, rather than on the people who suffer misery at the hands of those gangs. That is the purpose of my amendment, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for his support.
I finish with reference to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. How refreshing it is to have a contribution which talks about how to deal with a common problem facing humanity, whatever our views or wherever we come from—actually looking at what we might do to come together to solve that common problem rather than seeking to divide us, as sometimes happens.
I finish with this: we either try to solve this problem as one country—where one country believes that it can solve the problem by tightening up its borders and pulling up the drawbridge—or we recognise that across the continent and the globe countless millions of people are moving and the number who are going move in the future is probably going to increase. Some of the poorest countries in the world take in more refugees than many of the richer countries. All that needs to be discussed, debated and looked at—not just in a debate in Parliament but over a period of time in which people can contribute. That should include not just people in the legislature but members of the public, organisations and people from different parts of the globe.
I thought that the most reverend Primate’s contribution was refreshing and is to be welcomed. I hope that as well as supporting my own Motion your Lordships see fit to support the Motion in his name. It deserves support. It allows us to look forward, up and out, rather than inward. For that, we are in his debt. I look forward to all of us supporting his Motion. I wish to test the opinion of the House on Motion X1.
Lord Bellamy
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 104 and 107, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 107A.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoke to Motion Y. I beg to move.
Motion Y1 (as an amendment to Motion Y)
The Archbishop of Canterbury
At end insert “, and do propose Amendments 107B and 107C in lieu—
“Ten-year strategy on refugees and human trafficking
(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a ten-year strategy for tackling refugee crises affecting migration by irregular routes, or the movement of refugees, to the United Kingdom through collaboration with signatories to the Refugee Convention or any other international agreement on the rights of refugees.
(2) The strategy must include an evaluation of the factors driving migration by irregular routes and the movement of refugees to the United Kingdom.
(3) The strategy must also include provisions for tackling human trafficking to the United Kingdom and an evaluation of the factors driving demand.
(4) The Secretary of State must make and lay before Parliament a statement of policies for implementing the strategy.
(5) The first statement must be made within twelve months of the passing of this Act; and a subsequent statement must be made within twelve months of the making of the previous statement.
(6) A Minister of the Crown must, within three months of a statement under this section being laid before Parliament, move a motion in each House for the statement to be debated.
(7) “Ten-year strategy” means a strategy for the period of ten years beginning with the day on which preparation of the strategy is completed.
(8) “The Refugee Convention” means the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28th July 1951 and its Protocol.”
“(ba) section (Ten-year strategy on refugees and human trafficking);””
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, despite the gracious and kind words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, for which I am most grateful, I would like to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.