House of Commons
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
I wish to inform the House that I have received a letter from the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) informing me of his resignation as Chair of the Defence Committee. I therefore declare the Chair vacant. I will announce the arrangements for the election of a new Chair in due course.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kemi Badenoch)
I warmly welcome the new shadow ministerial team—it is a slimmed-down team from what we have been used to, but I welcome them all. My Department is focused on growing the economy by attracting global investment, promoting exports and creating the right regulatory business environment. Over the past five years we have supported more than 6,000 foreign direct investment projects, creating more than 280,000 new jobs across the UK. Just last week, the Department for Business and Trade supported Stellantis’s £100 million investment in an electric vehicle production plant in Ellesmere Port, showing the direct role we play in helping to level up across the regions and nations of the UK.
Jon Trickett
Like many hon. Members, during the recess I visited various sites in my constituency, including Langthwaite business park, which is an immensely successful business park with more than 50 businesses now employing almost 2,000 people. It is adjacent to two former pit villages, South Elmsall and South Kirkby, where deprivation is still deeply rooted. The people who live in those villages are not able to take advantage of the jobs created by Wakefield Council, Mohan De Silva and Karen Harrison. What Government programmes has the Secretary of State put in place, or can she put in place, to ensure there is a linkage between areas of deprivation and new jobs?
Kemi Badenoch
There is a lot that we are doing, and I am sorry to hear that the hon. Gentleman feels that villages in his constituency still are not able to access much of what we have given. The West Yorkshire devolution deal provided about £1.14 billion of investment and we also had a shared prosperity fund across West Yorkshire. I urge him to speak to his local council, because that is the vehicle through which many of these opportunities will be provided, but if he has a specific business issue that he thinks is affecting those companies and those villages, we are happy to look at it in more detail.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
My home city of Manchester was built on export and trade, but, as a result of the Tories’ mismanagement of the economy, apathy towards the export industries and neglect of everywhere outside the M25, the value of exports from London is more than three times that of the north-west. Does the Secretary of State honestly believe that she and her colleagues are committed to levelling up the whole of the UK, or will she admit that the Tories do not care about the benefits of trade reaching everyone in the United Kingdom?
Kemi Badenoch
I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Gentleman. He mentions Manchester; since October 2022 we have invested £2.6 billion into projects across England and agreed landmark devolution deals for Greater Manchester. He should be speaking to the Mayor of Greater Manchester to find out exactly why all that we are doing is not reaching the people in his constituency.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
The Minister for Industry and Economic Security (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am in constant conversations with specific companies to do with steel, including British Steel in my hon. Friend’s constituency, but of course those conversations are often commercially sensitive. I was delighted to speak at the event she hosted in Parliament to celebrate the launch of the Government’s updated steel procurement policy note, which will help to make opportunities more visible and maintain a level playing field for UK steel producers. In the financial year 2021-22, relevant public procurers bought around £365 million-worth of UK produced steel. Furthermore, the Government have provided around £730 million in energy costs relief to the sector since 2013.
Holly Mumby-Croft
Can my hon. Friend set out specifically what is being done to ensure the continued production of virgin steel in the UK?
Ms Ghani
Steel is vital to the UK, but we know that the industry needs to decarbonise for a sustainable future. The Paris agreement made it clear that the sector had to reduce its global emissions by 93% by 2050. The Government are actively engaging with the sector on how best to achieve that, but decarbonisation pathways for specific sites will be commercial decisions for individual companies. Industrial sectors, including steel companies, can bid into Government funds worth hundreds of millions of pounds to help them go green. As I mentioned, we have done a huge amount to support energy intensive industries.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The UK is the only major steel-producing nation where production is falling, but the Minister and her colleagues have been telling us for months that they cannot guarantee the use of UK-made steel in Government contracts, especially in the military. The thing is that the steel producers say that they can make whatever their customer asks by changing the production line. Will the Minister confirm that the reason we have a problem with steel in this country is the Government’s refusal to view it as a strategically important industry? The Conservatives’ sticking-plaster politics have failed steelworkers, as we have seen at Port Talbot.
Ms Ghani
I fundamentally disagree with the question—well, it was more of a statement. I made it clear when I took on this role that we would assess the level of steel in procurement contracts, and we have put together the steel procurement policy note, which will address how much steel is being procured in our contracts in the UK. We are doing a huge amount to ensure that the different types of steel that are needed are produced. We know how valuable the sector is, which is why we provided support with high energy costs and why we have a decarbonisation budget that the industry can link into. I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s proposition.
Mr Speaker
I call shadow Minister Sarah Jones and welcome her to her new position.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
In Wales, it is reported that this Government will spend half a billion pounds to make thousands of Port Talbot steelworkers redundant. Head north to Derby to a train assembly plant, where thousands more jobs are under threat because this Government bungled High Speed 2. Head around the UK coastline and the Government have managed to misjudge industry so much that they secured zero offshore wind contracts. That is a UK tour of almighty Conservative incompetence. Labour will harness this country’s talent. Will the Minister explain how many jobs the Government are losing us at Tata Steel, how many jobs they are losing us in Derby, how many jobs they are losing us in offshore wind, and why they are so intent on levelling down our great British industries?
Ms Ghani
I welcome the hon. Member to her post, but I suggest that leading on stories in the paper is not a good way forward. That is all speculation; we do not comment on commercial decisions. The reality is that there is £730 million in support with energy costs and more than £1 billion of support with decarbonisation. She talks about plans. Well, I am not sure if the Labour party’s plan stands for anything because it flip-flops so often. It is not just me who says that; let us reflect on a statement made by a union leader. They said that Labour was not only just an ’80s tribute act, but that it tends to sit on a “wobbly fence”. Who knows what Labour will say tomorrow after a statement made today?
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The Minister for Industry and Economic Security (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
My hon. Friend asks a timely question, because this is London International Shipping Week, and I have engaged with the UK Chamber of Shipping and Maritime UK. This week, I was at the International Maritime Organisation, which was hosting an exhibition called “Rewriting women into maritime history”, sponsored by the Lloyd’s Register Foundation—I mention in particular Nicola Good and Erne Janine, who made me this scarf reflecting on women in maritime. We are doing a huge amount, including launching the shipbuilding credit guarantee scheme to support our shipyards here in the UK.
Peter Aldous
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. The disappointing outcome of last week’s contracts for difference auction in respect of offshore wind was a wake-up call that clear strategies are required if we are to retain our position as a global leader in that industry. That includes support for the supply chain, of which service operation vessels are a vital component. Can she confirm that the national shipbuilding strategy will be reviewed to fully take into account this great opportunity?
Ms Ghani
We are proud of the UK’s reputation as a leader in the offshore wind sector. Together with industry, we have delivered the four largest operational wind farms in the world. The National Shipbuilding Office has done a huge amount of work in that area and will do even more with the new shipbuilding guarantee scheme. I think my hon. Friend’s other question relates to the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. This is London International Shipping Week, and our offshore wind farms and all our vessels are being promoted heavily.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
May I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that the three fleet solid support vessels for the Royal Navy are massive—equivalent to two aircraft carriers? Has she discussed with the Ministry of Defence why they will be built mostly in Spanish shipyards, rather than in British shipyards by British workers to sustain our shipbuilding industry? Does she know of any other shipbuilding country that behaves like this?
Ms Ghani
I have indeed discussed it with the Ministry of Defence and the National Shipbuilding Office. We want to make sure not only that the contracts for the work are managed here in the UK, but that we are using UK steel.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kemi Badenoch)
Just yesterday I was in Belfast, where my Department delivered the Northern Ireland investment summit in partnership with the Northern Ireland Office and Invest Northern Ireland. I would like to take the opportunity to thank the Secretaries of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and for Northern Ireland for their support in making it a success. Five hundred delegates, including investors from 24 countries around the world, attended to see at first hand the unique opportunities for inward investment in Northern Ireland across a range of sectors, including life sciences and advanced manufacturing.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
What consideration has my right hon. Friend given to creating an investment zone that covers the whole of Northern Ireland to bring much needed investment to that much loved part of the United Kingdom?
Kemi Badenoch
It is a very interesting idea. Investment zone policy is owned by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, so I will raise it with the Secretary of State there and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Officials from the UK Government and the Northern Ireland civil service continue to work closely to explore developing investment zone policy in the country. The lack of a functioning Executive there has, of course, limited the scope and nature of engagement on investment zones. If the Executive is restored, we will work together to progress an investment zone at pace, and if it is not formed, we will set out different plans in due course.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I thank the Secretary of State and the Government for the investment conference they held in Belfast over the last two days. It clearly shows a commitment to Northern Ireland, and I am very pleased to see that. When it comes to international investment, we are happy to see in Northern Ireland that Harland & Wolff, which has specialised in ship repair and shipbuilding for some years, has recruited almost 1,000 people in the last few months. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the relevant Department back home to ensure that Northern Ireland can play its part in the UK shipbuilding industry and therefore benefit from that investment?
Kemi Badenoch
The hon. Gentleman is quite right: this is an area where Northern Ireland has a comparative advantage. As we hosted the summit, we all looked out on the docks, and we could see that shipbuilding is integral to the country. UK Export Finance is supporting many of the companies that build ships and want to export this magnificent UK product all across the world. My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Economic Security spoke about the UK shipbuilding guarantee. We have been talking about this all week. Maritime investment is key, and if the hon. Gentleman would like further details on what we are doing that has an impact on his constituency, we can provide him with that information.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Business investment is lower in the UK than in any other G7 country and we rank 27th out of 30 OECD countries, ahead of only Poland, Luxembourg and Greece. More than half a trillion pounds-worth of under-investment by Government and business has left our economy trapped in a growth doom loop. What is the Secretary of State doing to undo this damage?
Kemi Badenoch
What the hon. Lady did not say is that business investment is increasing at a faster rate than in other countries. She is right that investment has been lower here, but that is why the Chancellor brought in policies such as full expensing to tackle this issue. She also did not mention the fact that we are the top destination for investment across financial services and many other areas. The UK is actually doing very well when it comes to inward investment, and we will continue to create policies that ensure we stay at the top of the pack.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
My Department is making it easier to do business every single day. Our smarter regulation programme—which includes implementation of the reforms recommended in the report by the taskforce on innovation, growth and regulatory reform, co-authored by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers)—is reducing regulatory burdens for business and reducing costs for consumers. We have announced reforms to employment law, wine regulation and product safety regulations, and further reforms will be announced soon.
Theresa Villiers
I thank the Minister for his answer, but can we have more urgency across Departments on regulatory reform? Using our Brexit freedoms to modernise our regulation is a key way to grow the economy and raise living standards, so can we see more progress on reforming regulation in areas such as personal data, clinical trials, agri-tech and satellites?
Kevin Hollinrake
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet is absolutely right to push us on this issue. We are working across Government to implement reforms. So far, we have delivered 10 of the 69 recommendations identified in the TIGRR report, in areas such as offshore wind and reforms to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Delivery of a further 49 is ongoing, in high-profile areas such as artificial intelligence reform, easing clinical trials, pensions, the ability to invest in venture capital, the General Data Protection Regulation and the seed enterprise investment scheme, all of which is saving businesses billions of pounds. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will shortly write to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet to confirm all those points.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
The Minister for Industry and Economic Security (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Businesses are at the heart of the Government’s export strategy, “Made in the UK, Sold to the World”, and of our shared ambition to reach £1 trillion in annual exports by 2030. In the past year, the UK has become the fifth largest exporter of goods and services in the world. Just last week, I personally led a delegation of 20 businesses to the Three Seas summit in Romania, connecting with over 1,500 representatives to help secure contracts, work and export opportunities in the region’s 13 member states.
Andrew Selous
In my constituency, companies such as EyeOL, Lindal Valve, Peli BioThermal, Friction and Signature Flatbreads all export globally, along with 198 smaller businesses that export through Amazon, yet apparently only 10% of companies export. What more can we do to get businesses to export, not just to Europe but globally? Apparently, businesses that export pay higher wages, so this is part of levelling up, too.
Ms Ghani
My hon. Friend is a great champion for his businesses and helping them to export. He is absolutely right that free trade agreements and memorandums of understanding are opening up new markets for us, but of course we want to make sure that everyone makes the most of those opportunities. That is why we are ensuring that UK exporters have the skills they need through our innovative export academy; the information they need to capitalise on new deals through the FTA utilisation strategy; the advice they need through the export support service; and the financial backing they need through UK Export Finance. My hon. Friend also made the very powerful point that companies that export pay higher wages.
Virginia Crosbie
Anglesey’s freeport is a fantastic opportunity to boost the economic prosperity of my constituency of Ynys Môn. Working with the Institute of Export and International Trade, Bangor University and Grŵp Llandrillo Menai, our Anglesey freeport is set to create the first Welsh trade centre of excellence. Does the Minister agree that that trade centre is central to local people having the skills to take advantage of the high-skill, high-wage employment opportunities that the freeport will deliver, and that it will be the start of Anglesey’s economic renaissance?
Ms Ghani
I think we can all agree that my hon. Friend has campaigned powerfully to secure that freeport and the opportunities it will create for many of her constituents. Good news is already coming in, with Westinghouse saying that it will headquarter there, creating jobs and opportunities. Of course, we are looking forward to getting more details and ensuring that the trade centre for excellence is located there too, which will provide another win for my hon. Friend.
Andrew Jones
I ran export programmes in my business career before coming to this place, and I always talk to the companies I meet about whether they are exporting and what more can be done.
Andrew Jones
Steady—I haven’t asked my question yet! The message from that experience is that perceived barriers can deter activity—perhaps perceived risk or complexity. What more can be done to link potential exporters with mentors who can share their experience, overcome those perceptions and get more companies exporting?
Ms Ghani
My hon. Friend has a huge amount of experience in this area, and I am very grateful for all the advice he provides. He makes a very good point. That is why our campaign, “Made in the UK, Sold to the World”, uses localised marketing for small businesses across the country to help them make the best of their abilities. To my hon. Friend’s point, we have a growing cohort of over 360 successful champions across the UK—entrepreneurs and business leaders who can share their experience and inspire new firms to become exporters.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
New analysis from the House of Commons Library that I am publishing today shows that since 2010 our trade with dictatorships has grown by over £135 billion and that it is growing twice as fast as our trade with the free world. Trade dependence on dictatorships is a risk, so when will the Minister set out a plan to define and de-risk our critical supply chains and begin growing our trade with nations that are free?
Ms Ghani
I am responsible for supply chains and critical minerals too; several months ago, I refreshed our critical minerals strategy. We are looking at how we ensure that we are building resilience and ensuring that our supply chains are stable.
I am also working with a number of industry representatives to put in place an import supply chain strategy as well. We know that there are kinks in supply chains and that there are issues of economic coercion around the world. We want to ensure that we have stable supply chains to protect our advanced manufacturing sector. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State points out that I am also the sanctions Minister. We are ensuring that that work is now co-ordinated, not only across Whitehall but internationally.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
Those of us on the Business and Trade Committee are very much aware of the sterling work done by officials in furtherance of the trade deal with India. However, in the revelation at the G20 summit of the Partnership for Global Infrastructure Investment—the counter to China’s belt and road project through a US-backed trade corridor to speed up links between Europe, the middle east and India—there was no mention of the UK. Did our Government decline to be involved or were we not invited?
Ms Ghani
I was in front of the Select Committee; that session would have been afterwards. I have just been informed that the Prime Minister is very much focused on securing a trade deal and on the other details that the hon. Gentleman raised. Because it is a Select Committee issue, I will make sure that he gets all the details in writing.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
During the recess, I visited Heathcoat Fabrics, an innovative export business in Tiverton; its achievements include selling to NASA a device that helped land the Mars rover on the surface of Mars. Earlier this year, HMRC rejected Heathcoat’s research and development claim without so much as a meeting. Will the Minister talk with colleagues at the Treasury to establish why Heathcoat Fabrics and other innovative export businesses are having R&D claims rejected this year?
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
According to the International Monetary Fund, British exports to France and Germany since 2019 are down—by 14% to France and 17% to Germany. US exports to both are up by 20%; Canada’s are up by 23% and Italy’s are up by 29%. Ministers will not back an industrial strategy, have cut funding to get businesses to trade shows and will not negotiate a veterinary agreement. Why does this Minister think that everyone else has got so much better recently at selling things to our nearest neighbours?
Ms Ghani
Members choose which numbers they want to throw out, but those do not necessarily reflect reality. I thought it was fantastic that we are now the eighth largest manufacturer in the world; I believe that we leap-frogged France—leap-frogging the French is always good to get on the record.
Actually, exports are most definitely up. In the 12 months to June 2023, UK exports rose by £139 billion, an increase of 8% once adjusted for inflation. In the same period, goods exports reached £428 billion, an 11% increase when adjusted for inflation. Perhaps we should reflect on the opportunities for all the businesses in our constituencies.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
The Government are committed to universal human rights, the rule of law, free speech and fairness. Those values guide all aspects of our international policy, including our approach to trade.
Kenny MacAskill
As trade talks continue with many countries that have deplorable human rights records and as discussions continue with India, will the Minister ensure that we receive binding commitments on human rights—particularly in relation to labour practices—rather than simply warm words, and that discussions continue with NGOs, which are well placed, and often better placed than the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, on what is going on?
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The UK will continue to show global leadership in encouraging all states to uphold international human rights obligations and to hold those who violate or abuse human rights to account. The UK has successfully included labour, environment and gender provisions in the free trade agreements that we have signed—with Australia and New Zealand, for example. Those both contained dedicated chapters on trade, gender equality, labour and the environment. They uphold human rights but, crucially, also level the playing field for our UK businesses.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Minister for Industry and Economic Security (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Food prices are driven by many pressures, including the global economic climate. We recognise the important role that trade can play in improving food security through diversification of supply chains. Our programme of free trade agreements is securing access to global supply chains, removing barriers and lowering costs for traders. Furthermore, in 2022, 84% of agricultural and food imports entered the UK tariff-free. By delivering trade deals and working with international partners, we are ensuring that British consumers have access to good-quality and good-value food.
Patrick Grady
Will the Minister explain how the Government’s plans for a £43 inspection fee on each consignment of food imported from the European Union represent barrier-free trade? Can she tell small food retailers, restaurants and their customers in Glasgow North when or whether they will have to pay this Brexit tax and the higher prices it will lead to? Can she also remind the House whether higher food prices as a result of Brexit were part of the Leave campaign prospectus?
Ms Ghani
I know the hon. Member wants to put all these anxieties on Brexit and forget about all the opportunities we are securing with trade agreements around the world. The issue he raises fundamentally sits at the doorstep of the Cabinet Office and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and we are working very closely with them to resolve it.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
As if the future stoking of inflation through extra Brexit red tape was not bad enough, businesses are already having to cope with uncertainty, the lack of a level playing field and the threat to our own food safety and security through the failure to introduce checks of our own. Given that Ministers were saying as recently as April that those checks will begin on 31 March, can the Minister explain how businesses are expected to get to grips with all this turmoil in Government policy given their tendency to keep kicking the can down the road over border checks?
Ms Ghani
Food inflation is a global issue: it is not a problem just here in the UK. Many factors influence food prices globally, notably energy costs. Global wholesale food prices have been falling since March and sometimes that can take time to reach consumers. In July, UK food inflation was just over 14%, down from 17%. The hon. Gentleman did not specify which issue he was touching on, but if it was to do with sanitary and phytosanitary controls for goods from the EU, that will be introduced and in place by 31 January 2024.
Richard Thomson
The Government could stop making existing global problems even worse when they apply to the UK—I was following up on the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) about the cost of checks on imported food—but the only thing worse than bad border checks is no border checks at all. We are no longer imposing SPS checks on food coming in from the EU. Is the Minister proud that, under the guise of taking back control, she is part of a Government who have given away control instead?
Ms Ghani
I referenced in my previous response the SPS controls; they were not in place when we were in the EU so I am not sure exactly what the hon. Gentleman’s anxiety is.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kemi Badenoch)
I signed the UK’s accession protocol to the CPTPP in New Zealand in July. We are now taking the necessary steps to ratify our accession agreement at the earliest opportunity. We expect it to enter into force in the second half of next year.
John McDonnell
I thank the Secretary of State for her response. The CPTPP contains investor-state dispute settlement provisions which allow corporations, as she knows, to sue national Governments through a largely secretive parallel legal system if they consider that Government policies threaten their future profits. Of the new agreement member states, Canadian countries have used the ISDS particularly aggressively, bringing 65 cases, the majority of which have been brought by mining and fossil fuel firms against the energy and environmental policies of various Governments. Will the Government consider negotiating a side letter with Canada, as they already have with New Zealand and Australia, to disapply the ISDS provisions in order to ensure the UK Government’s right to regulate is not constrained by powerful investors and corporations?
Kemi Badenoch
We have passed the stage where we will be making any changes; we are now trying to ratify the protocol. But the right hon. Gentleman should be reassured: the Government have always been clear that when we negotiate investment protection we do so in a way that does not hinder our right to regulate in the public interest. The UK already has investment agreements containing ISDS provisions with seven of the 11 CPTPP countries and we have never received a successful claim from any investors of CPTPP countries, or in fact investors of any other country with which we have ISDS commitments.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the progress made with CPTPP. Can she outline what plans the Department has to make UK companies aware of the opportunities that the agreement opens up for them?
Kemi Badenoch
My hon. Friend raises an important point, because most of the time, people ask me what CPTPP stands for, let alone what it is and how they can use it—[Interruption.] Well, not my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant). We would like to make sure that people are aware of it, so they can utilise this free trade agreement as soon as it is on our statute book and ratified across the 11 countries. That is something that our export commission and support service in the Department for Business and Trade will be carrying out, and we will also be supporting MPs in their constituencies during International Trade Week to highlight opportunities that come from all our free trade agreements.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kemi Badenoch)
[Interruption.] Pardon me for one second; there is a technical failure. The US is our largest trading partner, with trade reaching more than £290 billion. We have already succeeded in agreeing a solution to the section 232 tariffs on UK steel and aluminium and removed the long-standing US ban on UK lamb. In fact, just yesterday, I was speaking to President Biden’s special envoy Joe Kennedy about how we can increase trade and investment in Northern Ireland. We also have an SME dialogue next month between our two countries, supporting UK and US businesses to find export opportunities in each other’s markets.
Michael Fabricant
That is really good news, actually. In other good news, I learned this morning that Britain has overtaken France as a manufacturing country. In order to take full advantage of that, how can we use the nine trade representatives in the United States at our embassy and our consulates even more to encourage bilateral trade?
Kemi Badenoch
My hon. Friend is right. We have trade ambassadors and trade envoys working to ensure that we are fully utilising the opportunities that exist across our relationship with the US. In fact, our envoy to the US has been helping and supporting with a memorandum of understanding with Florida, which we are hoping to conclude shortly. If there are specific things he thinks we can do to assist, I would be happy to meet him and organise even more engagement that will help facilitate UK-US trade.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
The Minister for Industry and Economic Security (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Europe remains a vital destination for British exports. UK businesses exported more than £416 billion in the year to March 2023, up 24% in current prices on the previous year. We are engaging extensively with key European partners. This weekend, my right hon. Friend the Trade Secretary will attend the annual UK-Italy bilateral conference to advance the landmark ministerial dialogue on export and investment promotion launched in February, the first agreed between the UK and any EU country.
Jeff Smith
Here is an issue that could be discussed at that meeting: the youth group travel sector is worth £28 billion to the UK economy, but that two-way trade has collapsed since Brexit. The Prime Minister made a vague commitment in March that there would be an agreement for French school groups to visit the UK. We have heard no more details, and anyway we need a wider agreement to include other countries. When will the Government sort out this problem?
Ms Ghani
I think this matter sits not just with our Department, but with the Department for Education. If the hon. Gentleman will allow, I will write to him formally and make sure he gets an update on this issue.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
As the hon. Member will be aware, hospitality support is devolved. We continue to provide energy support via the energy bills discount scheme, benefiting hospitality businesses across the UK. I would be happy to meet her and any of her colleagues to see how we can help hospitality businesses across the whole UK.
Deidre Brock
That is excellent to hear, because the hospitality sector plays a crucial role in Scotland’s economy, but it has consistently been let down by the UK Government, who repeatedly fail to support the industry with the unique challenges it faces. Businesses across Scotland are grappling with inflationary pressures, labour and skill shortages and the ever-increasing complexity of trading rules with 27 countries we once traded with freely. Why will the Minister not accept that Brexit lies at the heart of these problems?
Kevin Hollinrake
If the hon. Lady looks again, she will find that the Scottish Government lie at the heart of these problems. In England, all eligible businesses can get 75% relief on their rates, subject to a cap of £110,000, while in Scotland, rates relief is available only to small businesses and could be as low as between 25% and 0% for individual properties with rateable values from £15,000. There is far more support available for English businesses than for Scottish businesses. I think she should go back and look again at the facts.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
I appreciate the hon. Member’s interest in ensuring a fair deal for his constituents. The Government’s universal service obligation on Royal Mail guarantees delivery of parcels at uniform rates throughout the UK, without any geographical restrictions. Where other courier businesses decide to serve should be a commercial decision for them.
Jonathan Edwards
A constituent who visited my surgery recently complained that one courier service in particular would not deliver to his isolated rural property. The choice of courier is, of course, currently a matter for retailers. Do the Government agree, though, that there is a case for saying that large retailers could offer the consumer the choice of which courier service should be used? That would empower consumers and hopefully improve performance via competition.
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Member raises a very important point. Competition plays a role in this, of course. It is absolutely right that retail business should look at this and try to get the lowest cost for their customers in terms of courier charges. It is, as he acknowledges, a commercial decision for individual retailers, but I absolutely applaud the points he raises. These businesses should be aware of those costs, because they can add significantly to the costs of the products they are selling.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kemi Badenoch)
The Windows update is now complete at the Dispatch Box, Mr Speaker!
As Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my priority is to support inward investment into all regions and nations of the UK. This week the Department for Business and Trade, in partnership with the Northern Ireland Office and Invest Northern Ireland, delivered the investment summit, which I referred to earlier. This momentous event showcased to more than 200 international investors the wealth of opportunities and talent that exist across the breadth of Northern Ireland. A young and talented workforce, competitive operating costs and unparalleled access to global economies make it an exceptional place to grow a successful business. I met representatives from US-owned aerospace manufacturer Spirit and several financial services companies that have established a base there. From Derry/Londonderry-based tech firms to Belfast budding creative companies, we boast a thriving ecosystem of world-class businesses across numerous sectors.
Chi Onwurah
This weekend, like most weekends, I will visit Wilko in Newcastle city centre. Should I explain to the fantastic staff there and their appreciative customers that mass redundancies and empty shopfronts is what the Conservatives mean by levelling up?
Kemi Badenoch
We are all very sad that a well-known business such as Wilko, with a strong presence on many high streets across our constituencies, has had to enter administration, and my thoughts are with employees who have been made redundant. Our Department has been not just supporting the business but discussing the best way forward with unions. We have been supporting by helping to find bidders. The fact is that sometimes these things do happen. It is not a reflection of the Government. In fact, making sure that people have somewhere to go to is how this Government are providing support.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
My right hon. Friend raises an important point. The Parliamentary Partnership Assembly created under the trade and co-operation agreement is a parliamentary body independent of Government. The Government value its work and its role supporting a mature and constructive relationship with the EU, rooted in shared values and delivering on shared interests. She is right that we should look forward, not backwards.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
The loss of Wilko is a significant blow to the nation’s high streets. However, more concerning is that no rescue has proved possible because several bidders have said that town centre retail is no longer a viable business model. In the light of that, do the Government really believe that their current policy environment is sufficient for British high streets to thrive?
Kevin Hollinrake
We are very concerned for the families affected by Wilko’s demise. The world of retail is a very competitive marketplace. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s premise that the high street is dead—not at all. It is reshaping itself, and while it does so we will help it, such as with the £13.6 billion of rates relief over the next five years.
Jonathan Reynolds
Ministers’ answers do not match the scale of the problem; 12,500 Wilko workers alone are at risk of redundancy. Labour’s plans for the high street are about reforming business rates, tackling late payment, cracking down on antisocial behaviour and stopping premises being left empty, with councils having more powers. The problem demands a response from Ministers. Based on their answers today, this Government have simply given up on the British high street.
Kevin Hollinrake
That is complete nonsense. This week, I met Helen Dickenson from the Retail Sector Council to discuss this matter closely. There are certain situations in certain companies of course. I guard the hon. Gentleman against political opportunism on the back of those 12,500 jobs, many of which have been picked up by other retailers such as Poundland in rescues of stores. On his point about business rates, which I hear time and again, all the Labour party has done is say that it will cancel £22 billion of business rates, without saying how it will replace those taxation receipts. Where is the money coming from?
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Kemi Badenoch
My hon. Friend is keen for a deal by Diwali, but as the Prime Minister and I have been at pains to say, it is about the deal, not the day. We are working as much as we can to get a deal, but we will not do so by sacrificing British interests. The deal has to work for both the UK and India. I met the Indian Commerce and Finance Ministers to ensure that we create a mutually beneficial deal.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Lady raises an important point. That is why we launched a payment and cash flow review earlier this year, which is due to report very shortly. We are ambitious to make sure that small businesses get paid more quickly through putting more pressure on larger companies, the results of which will be announced very shortly.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
In August, I was lucky to be invited to the 70th anniversary of Caterpillar being founded in my constituency. It was the first place outside the US it set up a base in, and it now employs 1,300 people, making things such as the electric backhoe loader. Will my hon. Friend congratulate Caterpillar on its investment here, from where it exports across the world? Would she like to come and see exactly what it does in Bosworth?
The Minister for Industry and Economic Security (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I join my hon. Friend, a great champion of Bosworth, in congratulating Caterpillar on 70 years and 1,300 employees. That is fantastic. I look forward to going along and having a go on the electric diggers.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Member raises an important point. There is certainly, as part of the administration process, an obligation on the administrators to look at the circumstances that led to the demise of that company and report to the Insolvency Service. I am sure that she, like I, will be very interested in the outcome of that investigation.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for events, can I highlight the huge benefits the sector brings us in promoting trade, exports and inward investment? Will the Department do more to promote the UK worldwide as a great place to bring international events, business meetings and conferences?
Kemi Badenoch
My right hon. Friend raises a good point. The events industry is often overlooked, yet it is a great export opportunity. Those are some of the things I am going to raise with the Board of Trade, which is meeting next week. It is about promoting the best of British internationally. Events is one of the areas we can take a closer look at.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Member raises an important point about the cost of living impact on businesses. These are global issues, not domestic issues, and she should be clear on that with her businesses. As I said in response to the question from her hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), the Scottish Government might look at increasing the generosity of the business rates relief scheme, as the rest of the UK has.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
In the period leading up to 2021, sector deals were a very effective means of boosting productivity, innovation and skills in such sectors as aerospace, AI and offshore wind. What plans are there to review, revitalise and extend those effective public-private sector partnerships?
Kemi Badenoch
My hon. Friend raises a good point. Those sectors are critical for the UK economy. While we did have plans around sector deals, I would focus on the Chancellor’s five sectors that he thinks will drive growth in the UK. I am happy to write to my hon. Friend specifically about what impact those sectors will have in his constituency.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Kevin Hollinrake
I am happy to engage with the hon. Member. I missed the earliest part of his question, but we are providing an awful lot of support for small businesses in various ways. I cannot remember his amendment to the Bill, but I am happy to engage with him to see what we can do to help.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
May we have an update on our proposals for a carbon border adjustment mechanism?
Kevin Hollinrake
The Treasury published a consultation in March on a range of measures to mitigate carbon leakage. Potential policies include a carbon adjustment mechanism on managing product standards. I am sure it will report shortly.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Kemi Badenoch
That is certainly something we can look to do. There are many concerns about what will happen to copyright and intellectual property once AI continues to advance in this area. The hon. Member raises an important point. If he writes to me specifically, I will make sure that the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology gets to see that so we can incorporate it.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
I notice, by the way, that the Americans refer to it as the trans-Pacific partnership, which I think is actually a lot shorter and better than what we call it. Have there been any discussions at all with the United States Administration to ask whether they might eventually rejoin the partnership?
Kemi Badenoch
My hon. Friend is right. It used to be called the TPP, and it was the Canadians who added the “comprehensive and progressive” to make it quite a mouthful. The question of what the US wants to do on trade deals comes up time and again. The US has said that it will not sign any free trade agreements even though it was initially considering the TPP. That is why the announcement of the Atlantic declaration by the Prime Minister and President Biden is key. That is our new vehicle to form a trade partnership, and my Department is working actively across Government and with our counterparts in the US to make sure that that delivers for the UK.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Many small businesses, particularly in the retail and hospitality sectors, still rely on high street banking. Earlier this month, the last bank in Denton town centre—the Halifax—closed. It was not just the last one in Denton but the last one in the Denton and Reddish parliamentary constituency, leaving small businesses without access to high street banking. It is not good enough, is it?
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and we urge banks to listen to their customers about keeping their doors open. Of course, we have the banking framework relationship with the post office network, which provides deposit and cash facilities for small businesses on high streets in Denton and other parts of the country. We are determined to make that relationship more generous to the Post Office to ensure the sustainability of the post office network.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Over the recess, I had the pleasure of visiting the historic Harland & Wolff shipyard in north Devon, where we talked about the potential for UK shipbuilding jobs linked to the offshore renewables sector. Given last week’s disappointing auction round, to put it mildly, what can the Minister say to convince the shipbuilding industry that there is a future for it in making those service vessels?
Ms Ghani
I was with Harland & Wolff just last night for London International Shipping Week, and the firm is really excited about the shipbuilding credit guarantee scheme, which provides Government-backed loans of up to £500 million to ensure that shipbuilding continues to thrive in the UK. That is a product for which the industry has been asking for many years, and we have been able to deliver it this year.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Ministers have spent the past hour or so telling us, in the face of overwhelmingly contrary evidence, that Brexit is just the most wonderfullest thing ever to have happened in the history of the entire universe. Will the Secretary of State level up with us for a minute and tell us whether there is anything at all about Brexit that she finds regrettable, disappointing or frustrating?
Kemi Badenoch
The hon. Gentleman is right—there is one thing that I find regrettable, and it is the fact that he continues to bang on and on about this even after the rest of the world has moved on post the referendum. The fact is that we have left the EU and we are not going back into it—certainly not under the terms that would require us to do so. He should be focusing on the benefits of Brexit, such as having more control over our laws, our borders and our money, as well as being able to deregulate, including through our smarter regulation programme. If he looked at that, there might be opportunities he could deliver for the people of Scotland.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
As the UK automotive industry wrestles with the looming increase in the rules of origin thresholds, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has just announced a probe into the flood of cheaper Chinese electric cars coming into the market. Although there has undoubtedly been much for the UK to welcome, with announcements from Jaguar Land Rover and BMW, what additional measures are the Government taking to ameliorate the impact of cheaper and heavily subsidised Chinese imports?
Kemi Badenoch
That is an excellent question, because it raises something fundamental. The transition to net zero will change the nature of the UK supply chain and, as I said earlier this week, China poses a systemic challenge here. The path to net zero creates a risk of even greater reliance on China, especially when it comes to the battery manufacturing needed for zero emission vehicles. We cannot be naive about that. That is why I am working hard to ensure not only that business competitiveness is at the heart of our transition, but that British national interests come first. We cannot depend on a single country. We must protect our national security, so we are working with like-minded allies. My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Economic Security has spoken about our critical minerals strategy and we are working to diversify and build those supply chains. That is what the Atlantic declaration, which I mentioned earlier, is also about. We are very aware of this point, but I think it is important to reinforce it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State very much for the encouraging positivity of her answers—[Interruption.] At least, most of us are encouraged.
Great Britain is Northern Ireland’s main export market for agricultural goods, accounting for some 64.1% of all exports. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs back in Northern Ireland to ensure consistent, free-flowing agri-trade, given the complications caused by the Northern Ireland protocol?
Kemi Badenoch
The hon. Gentleman is right. The first thing we want to see is the restoration of the Executive. When I was in Belfast this week, I spoke to Members of the Legislative Assembly from across the parties, and this is something they repeatedly raise. Businesses are telling us that the Windsor framework is helping, and we are working closely with the ones that still have issues. Such discussions facilitate business conversations and encourage the restoration of the Executive, which would help to drive the changes the hon. Gentleman wants to see.
Libya Floods
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the floods in Libya.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (David Rutley)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this issue, which I know is a source of concern across the House. It is important that we discuss it today.
The situation is very concerning, and I send sincere condolences on behalf of the Government to the people of Libya. I am sure that is true for everyone in the House. On Wednesday, eastern Administration officials reported that the death toll had risen to at least 5,300, and newspaper reports this morning suggest the number could reach 20,000.
Storm Daniel hit Libya on Sunday 10 September after causing floods and chaos in Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey, and then, early on Monday morning, two dams burst, which we know caused major flooding that submerged parts of the city and wiped out entire neighbourhoods. The attempt to recover the situation has been made worse by a lack of road access and by communication channels being down. We stand ready to help as best we can.
The UK has committed to supporting Libya following these devastating floods, and yesterday the Foreign Secretary announced an initial package worth up to £1 million to provide life-saving assistance to meet the immediate needs of those most affected by the floods. The UN central emergency response fund, to which the UK is the third largest donor, has announced that it will deliver $10 million of support to Libya. We are also working with trusted partners on the ground to identify the most urgent basic needs, including shelter, healthcare and sanitation. We stand ready to provide further support.
The UK remains in close contact with authorities across Libya to help respond to this tragic crisis, and Lord Ahmad, the Minister for the middle east and north Africa, has reiterated the UK’s commitment to Libya in a call with the chair of Libya’s Presidential Council. UN officials have said that the western and eastern Governments are working together and communicating on this, which will be important, and we stand ready to help the people of Libya in these very challenging times.
Ms Brown
The horror of the catastrophic floods in Libya is hard to imagine: loved ones swept away within arm’s reach, drowning in mud and crushed under rubble. The city of Derna has been utterly devastated and, as the Minister said, estimates now range above 20,000 lives lost. The grief and worry of those with no knowledge of their loved ones’ fate must be simply unbearable. Our thoughts are with them and with all the people of Libya.
As the Minister said, assistance has struggled to reach the city, and the scale of urgency of need is immense. Many areas have reportedly received no help, and there is no hope of rescue for anyone left alive trapped under mud and rubble. There is obviously a terrible threat from disease, with authorities lacking enough body bags to cope with the scale of death.
In the Minister’s estimation, how many people are now lacking shelter, clean water and medical care? I know the Government are supporting the United Nations central emergency response fund, but is the Minister confident that that will support co-ordinated efforts and reach those who are truly in dire need?
Surely the scale of this disaster is linked to Libya’s many years of conflict and chaos, political paralysis, diplomatic failure and neglect. We know that climate heating is making extreme weather, such as Storm Daniel, more intense. We must help to prevent these horrors where we can, build resilience to a changing climate and support Libya on the path to stability and peace. That will take strategic action on diplomacy, security and development, and we must make sure the humanitarian response, which is desperately needed right now, is delivered.
David Rutley
As usual, the hon. Lady has made important points, with her characteristic compassion and passion. I reiterate that we share those sentiments and we are working hard to address the situation. Let me update the House by saying that the UN is currently finalising its needs assessment and we hope to see that this afternoon. The Foreign Secretary has already set out that we are ready to provide support, and we have put some initial support on the table. I reiterate to the hon. Lady and the House that we will continue to keep in close contact with the UN and we are reiterating our support to it. We will continue to monitor the situation on the ground and we stand ready to offer further assistance. The point she makes is crucial: this support needs to reach the people affected. Too often, in various countries, there have been blockages in getting support to the frontline. I understand that the two groups in Libya are working together or at least talking, which is encouraging. That is going to be crucial in making sure that there is a flow of funds and, more importantly, that support is provided on the ground. She also talks about future support. Clearly, we need to focus on the humanitarian issues right now, but, given the challenges of climate change, there will be urgent needs associated with infrastructure to address. However, that is for another day and I am sure we will continue that conversation.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
This is an awful situation, and both Front Benchers have got it absolutely right. One issue is that Libya is a country that has such an appalling history. When we give money, as a nation and as Government, we will have to be careful that the corrupting influences in that country do not siphon it off, as it is meant for the people who have suffered so badly. Will the Minister please assure the House that every effort will be made by his Department and the Government to ensure that that money goes to the people who need it now and that we help to alleviate their suffering?
David Rutley
My hon. Friend make important points, which I hope are listened to by those involved in the situation in Libya. The support absolutely needs to get to the frontline. If nothing else, we hope that this moment of severe crisis in that country will bring sometimes warring factions and groups who have different opinions together in common cause—that is vital. There comes a point where human interest and humanitarian concern is the most important factor, as is the case right now.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Of course, we join both Front Benchers in sending our deepest condolences to the families of those who have lost loved ones in these devastating floods. The scale of the destruction is utterly unimaginable, and Libya needs international solidarity as it moves from the search and rescue phase to the recovery phase. As climate change bites harder and we see more fierce natural disasters, it will so often be the case that those least able to cope with the effects of climate change are impacted to the greatest extent. So will the UK Government invest much more in international loss and damage funding, as the Scottish Government have championed worldwide? Of course, we will support the Government in any support they offer Libya. However, given the drastic cut of 30% in the international aid budget and the catastrophic impact it has had on our ability to be a global player and react to the needs of countries hit by climate change disasters such as we see in Libya right now, what more support can the Libyans expect from the Government?
David Rutley
I thank the hon. Member for his support. The action that is being taken in the short term is the top priority right now. He makes important points about how we are working to affect those who are climate-vulnerable. We will continue to do that, but I reassure him that in this moment in time we have found support, we will continue to monitor the situation and we will provide whatever other support we need to provide. Our funding through the UN is pivotal at this time.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for the update. Clearly, the most important thing right now is humanitarian aid, but there will be a requirement for long-term rebuilding of the structures that have been destroyed. The British people will want to be generous but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) mentioned, there is a risk that funds will be diverted to improper uses. When a fund is set up to which the British people can contribute, will my hon. Friend make sure that the British people know how to contribute to it and that it goes to the people who need it?
David Rutley
My hon. Friend makes a good point, which has been reiterated by other Members: the money needs to get to the frontline. We will do everything we can, certainly with those funds provided by the UK Government and through the UN; that will be a key focus. The fact that so many colleagues are raising the issue helps us to make that point with conviction.
On his wider point, the primary focus right now is humanitarian need, but going forward, Libya needs to move down a pathway to free and fair elections. That will help the country in the longer term, but humanitarian aid and support is our key focus right now.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I join colleagues in offering my condolences to all those who have lost loved ones in the devastation in Libya. In my constituency and in many other parts of the country there are strong Libyan diaspora communities watching on in despair, unsure about the whereabouts of their loved ones. Will the Minister confirm what support is available to Libyan communities and others in the UK to gain information about friends and family in Libya?
David Rutley
Our embassy staff are working closely with people on the ground, keeping in touch with what is going on, and our consular support team is keeping in touch with dual nationals in Libya, providing the support they need. They will continue to do that. Our condolences go not only to the people of Libya but to the wider diaspora as well. We will continue to do everything we can, as hon. Members on all sides of the House have urged—that message has been well received today.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
I fully support the fact that the UK Government have provided international assistance to the people of Libya, but what are we doing specifically to ensure humanitarian assistance is urgently getting to people on the ground today?
David Rutley
As I say, we have made our initial offer of support. We continue to have an active dialogue with the Libyan authorities and the UN. As I said to the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown), the key thing today is that we are waiting for the UN needs assessment, so we can then give our best assessment of what sort of support we need to help to provide.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The tragic scenes we are witnessing in Libya are utterly horrifying; my thoughts and prayers are with all those affected. During the earthquakes in Syria and Turkey, my noble Friend Lord Purvis asked
“why the Government’s humanitarian crisis reserve, which recently stood at £500 million, has now been depleted to only £30 million, which means that the UK’s response to any other emergencies or disasters will be greatly reduced.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 March 2023; Vol. 828, c. 642.]
Has that significant reduction in a crisis reserve for humanitarian assistance affected our ability to help those in Libya?
David Rutley
I think hon. Members will agree that we responded fast to the situation in Morocco. It is very sad that this tragedy follows so quickly afterwards, and we want to respond to it quickly too. Part of the challenge has been understanding the situation on the ground. We know the macro picture, but the exact detail that the Government and hon. Members want to see is difficult to ascertain because of problems with communication links and transportation, but we will get a better assessment this afternoon.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
What has happened in Libya is an absolute catastrophe and it is awful for all those people who have been killed or affected. As well as lives lost, infrastructure has been damaged as well as heritage and culture. That part of Libya is home to a wealth of heritage and history, including the UNESCO site of Cyrene. Satellite images show that roads to Cyrene have been badly damaged and washed away. What assessment have the Government made and what conversations have they had with UNESCO about those world heritage sites, and what are the Government doing to protect and restore the world heritage sites that have been damaged?
David Rutley
I know that my hon. Friend has a real interest in the history and heritage of north Africa. Clearly, any damage to a UNESCO world heritage site would be a cause of great concern. Right now, as Members on both sides of the House have said, our focus has to be on what we can do to help preserve life and also to protect British nationals. None the less, we will work with partners through UNESCO on the matters that he has raised.
Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
This is a devastating tragedy, and it has unquestionably been exacerbated by Libya’s poor warning and evacuation systems, and by its substandard planning and design standards. I welcome the financial support that the Minister has outlined, but can he assure me that we will also look to provide whatever technical expertise is necessary to bring about improvements in these areas for the rebuilding of Libya both now and into the future?
David Rutley
The hon. Member makes a really important point about the medium term, and we will certainly examine what technical support we can provide. That will be important given the infrastructure issues. I also gently urge all parties in Libya to recognise that this is about prioritisation. If they can move away from conflict and think about how they can work in the interests of their own populations, that would also help the situation. We stand ready to help, but once we get through this immediate humanitarian crisis, other parties will need to work out how they can help move the country forward.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I appreciate what the Minister is saying: the humanitarian response to what have been described as apocalyptic scenes has to be the priority. I went to Kashmir in my first term as an MP, following the devastating earthquake there, and saw how the way that school buildings had been constructed lent itself to roofs collapsing on children and other horrific scenes. We talked about how the UK could lend its expertise in that area to make sure that, following the reconstruction effort, Kashmir would be more resilient to future shocks. Are we still involved in such programmes? Can we use that expertise to ensure that, when it comes to rebuilding Libya and other affected countries, they are far more resilient?
David Rutley
I recognise the hon. Member’s interest and expertise in this area from her previous visits and through her work in Parliament. She makes an important point, similar to that made by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western). We do need to look at what technical expertise we can provide. I will take that away and work on it with Lord Ahmad. It is a good point.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The scenes coming out of Libya are just horrific. My thoughts and prayers are added to those from across the House to all the families affected. The Minister, in response to my hon. Friend on the Front Bench, said that communications had been taken out and that that is hampering efforts to get humanitarian aid to where it is needed. What can the UK Government do to help get those communications back up and running?
David Rutley
That is a really important point. Hopefully, our expertise can help there. We need to see what the UN wants us to do in a co-ordinated way. We will play our part, and the calls from Members in this House will spur us on and help us in our negotiations to get urgent access to do what we can to help. I wish to thank all Members for their contributions today. It has been an important conversation and call to action.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his deep and sincere interest and for his commitment, which is what all of us in this House wish to see. Our Government and our Ministers have never been found wanting when it comes to helping, and we appreciate that. He has outlined the devastation and loss of life from Storm Daniel. Like others, my thoughts and prayers are with those families who have lost loved ones. Charities such as Christian Aid, alongside church groups in my constituency of Strangford and across Northern Ireland, are already setting up a page. It is clear that there is a desire to help. How can the Minister and the Government work alongside the charities and the churches to get aid to the right place as soon as humanly possible?
David Rutley
The response from UK charities, including those that the hon. Member has mentioned, is always greatly valued, as is their expertise and capability to deliver. We need to get the impact assessment from the UN today. Let us then co-ordinate our efforts with partners, not just across Governments but with non-governmental organisations, to get the best possible outcome. The call to action is clear and we need to move fast.
Voter Identification Scheme
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to make a statement on the voter identification scheme.
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Rachel Maclean)
We were pleased and encouraged by the first roll-out of voter identification at the local elections in England in May. The data gathered in polling stations showed that the vast majority of electors—99.75%—were able to cast their vote successfully and adapted well to the roll-out of the changes. We are grateful to local authorities and other partners for their work to deliver the change in requirements.
The Government committed in legislation to conduct an evaluation of the implementation of voter identification at the local elections in May and at the next two UK parliamentary general elections. Our intention is that the first of those reports, evaluating the implementation at May’s local elections, will be published in November 2023. Yesterday the Government published two documents that demonstrate that we are making clear progress with the evaluation, and that provide more detail on the evidence upon which it will be based. We are determined to ensure that we fully understand how the policy has operated in practice, what has gone well, and any ideas for improvement.
There are few tasks more important in public life than maintaining the integrity of our democratic processes and the British public’s trust in them. We are not just committed to doing so; we are acting to achieve that. The Government have taken seriously the important recommendations made by the independent Electoral Commission, by international electoral observers and by Sir Eric Pickles—now Lord Pickles—in his report into electoral fraud, and we have been committed in the years since to addressing what has been a staggering vulnerability in our electoral system. It was previously far too easy to commit the crime of electoral fraud in the polling station and almost impossible to detect it. I am immensely proud that we have now delivered this new process and fulfilled our manifesto commitment.
Wendy Chamberlain
I suspect that the Minister and I were reading different reports, because the first report cards on the roll-out of voter identification in England are out, and they are not good. The Electoral Commission’s report—the result of extensive work monitoring and analysing the recent elections—warned that disabled people and the unemployed found it harder to show accepted voter ID, as well as younger people and people from ethnic minorities. It also reported that on average more deprived areas had a higher proportion turned away compared with less deprived areas. The Local Government Information Unit reported that approximately 14,000 voters were not given a ballot paper because they could not show an accepted form of ID and significantly more were deterred from voting because of the ID requirement.
This is not just about England, because the next election is UK wide—it will affect my constituents in North East Fife. Hundreds of thousands of people risk being turned away at the next election, at a cost to the taxpayer of £120 million over the next decade, and all of that to combat levels of voter fraud that, at the last election, stood at six cases—talk about using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. A general election is perhaps no more than a year away, but it is clear from reading the reports that we are teetering on the cliff edge of a democratic travesty, not just because the roll-out of voter ID has been botched—many of us believe that it should never have been implemented in the first place—but because of the Government’s apparent refusal to listen to the concerns of members of the public and Members of this House. That was what they did in the run-up to the local elections, when take-up of voter authority certificates was pitiful and local authorities were warning that they were unprepared, and that is what the Government are doing now.
I was hugely disheartened that in both the Minister’s response and the written statement published yesterday the Government seem to be taking a stance of blindly ignoring the warning signs. So far, I see no evidence to suggest that that stance will change in the Government’s evaluation report in November. I hope that the Minister will use the opportunity to start setting things right. Will the Government ensure that the evaluation report in November is truly independent? What measures are under consideration to ensure that voters will not be turned away at the general election, as the LGIU report warns? How do the Government intend to expand the roll-out of voter authority certificates ahead of the general election, and will they expand the list of acceptable forms of identification?
Rachel Maclean
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments, but I remind all Members in this Chamber that we have already passed the Elections Act 2022; it passed the scrutiny of both Houses and is now law. If she refers to the debates in Hansard, she has treated us to a compilation of the Liberal Democrats’ greatest hits—and that is no surprise because, as always, they do one thing and say another. If she is so opposed to the principle of electoral identification and photographic identification, why did her party support its introduction in Northern Ireland? At that time, the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesperson told Parliament that
“we accept the need for a Bill… The Liberal Democrats…welcome the Government’s intention to introduce an electoral identity card”—[Official Report, 10 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 705-707.]
That legislation passed Second Reading without a vote. If we separate the points of substance and process from re-running the battles of the past, of course we take the recommendations of the independent Electoral Commission extremely seriously, as we set out in detail in the report and as I set out in my remarks earlier.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
The Minister has rightly distinguished the political from the practical. The Electoral Commission itself recommended photographic ID, and it has now come forward with other comments.
We must recognise that the biggest deficit is the inadequacies in the completeness of the electoral roll, and the fact that one third of people do not vote in general elections and up to two thirds do not vote in local elections. We ought to spend as much time on that issue as we do on this.
We ought to consider the suggestion of attestation, where someone in a household who does not have voter ID can have their identity attested by a person in the same household who does. Perhaps neighbours ought to be able to do that, and other people with some kind of standing in society might be able to do the same thing for people who find they cannot vote on the day. It seems to me that we can improve what we have without throwing out the whole system of photographic ID, which, as the Minister has said, was supported by all parties when it was first brought in for Northern Ireland.
Rachel Maclean
I thank my hon. Friend the Father of the House for those very sensible and proportionate comments. He is right that, as political parties, we all have a responsibility to ensure that our constituents and those voters take part in our democratic process. That is what this process is about. I am afraid that the kind of scaremongering comments that we have just heard from the Liberal Democrats, and that no doubt we will hear from all the other Opposition parties, are damaging the important cause that we all stand behind: ensuring the safety of our precious democracy, which now more than at any other time could potentially be at risk. I am proud to be part of a Government who are taking sensible steps to protect our democracy from the kind of interference that we all fear could happen in this day and age.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I echo the concerns raised by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) in her urgent question and by the Father of the House in his sensible remarks. The Minister should be promoting confidence in our electoral system and concentrating on getting the millions of people who are not registered to vote on to the register. Instead, she has tried to pull the wool over our eyes this morning by presenting the Electoral Commission’s report as a ringing endorsement of her Government’s dangerous policies.
The reality is far from that. This extremely concerning report brings into sharp focus the consequences of the Tories’ failed photo ID regulations. By introducing such strict regulations, against the advice of experts and equality groups, the Conservatives have snatched away the ability of legitimate voters to have their say on services and society. One former Minister, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg), admitted that this partisan scheme was designed to rig the rules and lock voters out of democracy. The Minister claims that she is concerned with protecting our democracy, so will she agree to the entirely reasonable Electoral Commission reforms and the widening of the list of ID that people can use to vote, or will she commit to introducing a vouching rule for those without voter ID?
Given that the Electoral Commission said that the rules risk widespread disenfranchisement at the general election, will the Minister commit now to publishing the evidence to prove the commission wrong? That should not be a problem if she has nothing to hide.
Is the Minister concerned by the watchdog’s findings that the laws could have a disproportionate impact on people from minority ethnic backgrounds? When the independent review concludes, will she commit to making a statement to the House?
Rachel Maclean
May I take this opportunity to warmly welcome the hon. Lady to her place and to thank her for her comments? On the substantive, non-political points that she made, I have been extremely clear, and am happy to repeat the assurance, that we are working carefully with the independent Electoral Commission, which itself recommended the introduction of photographic ID to safeguard our precious democracy. We are looking at all its recommendations. We will, of course, naturally come forward for scrutiny when the findings are published, as we do as a matter of course.
On the substantive point, is the hon. Lady really saying that the Labour party will repeal the Elections Act should it come into government? What exactly has the Labour party done to raise confidence among Labour voters? Or is this just a case of Labour Members standing on the sidelines making shrill, scaremongering claims? Time and again, Labour has made such claims ahead of the sensible and proportionate pilot schemes that we have rolled out, but none of the things that Labour Members have warned about has happened—[Interruption.] Perhaps she would like to listen to my remarks.
The new shadow Secretary of State for Levelling Up, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), warned of shortages of electoral staff, lack of venues and funding uncertainty ahead of the local elections in May 2021. The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, warned that elderly people and ethnic minorities would not visit polling stations. None of those things has happened. The Electoral Commission—[Interruption.] Opposition Members are chuntering from sedentary positions, but perhaps they should listen to the words of the independent Electoral Commission—not my words—which found that
“the polls were delivered safely and successfully”,
and that changes put in place by the UK Government, the commission and electoral administrators helped to “support and reassure voters” and campaigners.
I think it important to make this final point. The hon. Lady talks about ethnic minorities being disenfranchised and discriminated against, but we know from the type of heinous behaviour that we saw in Tower Hamlets and Birmingham that ethnic minority voters are most disenfranchised and disadvantaged by not having security in our elections.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The crime of personation has been notoriously difficult to prove. We have functioned on the basis of trust that people who go to the polling station are who they say they are. The sad reality is that when I was elected in 2010, we found after the election that scores, perhaps hundreds, of people who had voted in my constituency were actually abroad at the time. The police refused to do anything about it. People impersonated those voters. I do not how they voted, but clearly those votes were stolen from people. Voter ID ensures that that sort of activity cannot happen. Will my hon. Friend also take up the issue of postal and proxy voting to ensure that their proper policing is integral to our system?
Rachel Maclean
My hon. Friend is totally right. The suggestion from the Opposition parties is that we should just wait and see whether something bad happens, and then take action. That is the wrong way to go about safeguarding our democracy, which we should all be proud of. He makes the extremely valid point that it is impossible to detect impersonation. When it has been detected, such as in Tower Hamlets and Birmingham—the Opposition do not like me mentioning it—people have been taken to court and found guilty of these offences. He is also right to raise the issue of postal and proxy voting, and he will know that we are commencing provisions to safeguard some of those processes, which is the right thing to do.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The incredibly hard-working team at the Electoral Commission are far too polite to say, “We told you so,” but that would be a pretty easy way to sum up most of what is in this report. Practically every concern about the introduction of photo ID that was raised during the passage of the Elections Bill has been borne out in the by-elections and local elections that have taken place since it became law.
The Government say that they want to increase democratic participation and not suppress turnout among minority and disadvantaged communities, but the evidence suggests that that is exactly what is happening—fewer votes from sections of society that it just so happens are less likely to vote Tory. What steps will the Government take in advance of the general election to remove barriers to voting established by the Elections Act 2022? Will they expand the list of acceptable ID? Will they make sure that, as the Father of the House suggests, people can vote on polling day through attestation? Will they make sure that the Electoral Commission and local authorities are properly resourced to fulfil their functions? They already have to deal with boundary changes and polling district redraws, and now they have to deal with the Elections Act. Will the Government look to Scotland as well, where with votes for 16 and 17-year-olds, refugees and EU citizens, we are seeking to expand, not restrict, the franchise?
Rachel Maclean
I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman listened to the response that I have given multiple times, but I am happy to repeat it, in case he was reading his brief at the time. We are working with the Electoral Commission on all the recommendations it has made. It made several recommendations, and we are looking closely at them. I hope that we all share the same objective of making sure that this change is rolled out successfully.
If the hon. Gentleman does not like our proposals—I am sure he does not, because he wants to break up the United Kingdom—could he explain why they are working so well in Northern Ireland? The incredibly hard-working people, as he puts it, from the Electoral Commission have observed there:
“Since the introduction of photo ID in Northern Ireland there have been no reported cases of personation. Voters’ confidence that elections are well-run in Northern Ireland is consistently higher than in Great Britain, and there are virtually no allegations of electoral fraud at polling stations.”
Why is it perfectly acceptable for us to listen to the Electoral Commission in Northern Ireland, England and Wales but not in Scotland?
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
One of the problems was that people took ID that had run out, such as driving licences and passports. Does the Minister agree that if a document has recently run out, as long as it has a photograph of the person, it is admissible? Furthermore, could the amount of ID that can be shown be broadened slightly, so that people have a bit more choice in what they can use?
Rachel Maclean
I thank my hon. Friend for his suggestions. It is right that we look at all the practical barriers that have been encountered at polling stations. That is why we are working closely with the sector to listen to its feedback and to representations from civil society, disability charities and others. We know that where voter identification was trialled in pilots, the proportion of people who agreed that electoral fraud was not a problem increased from 13% to 32%. We know that most people were able to vote successfully in both the pilot and the last local elections, but it is right to look at all the details, and we will be doing so, in line with the Electoral Commission’s recommendations.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
If we are to have voter ID at the next general election, which we will, will the Minister seriously look at extending the amount of ID that is acceptable? It is unfathomable that a concessionary bus pass is acceptable, but an 18-year-old’s bus pass is not.
Rachel Maclean
I would like the hon. Gentleman to look carefully at the eligibility for 18-year-old Oyster cards and 60-plus Oyster cards, because they are different. Eligibility for the 60-plus card involves significantly more requirements, including a passport or driving licence. Of course, when we try to expand the forms of identification that can be used, we are going to say yes in some instances and no in others if the eligibility is different.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Despite what we are hearing from Opposition Members, my experience at the local elections in May was that when people were turned away, they did indeed return. They are used to providing identification when dealing with so many other services, and they found it quite acceptable. We need to recognise that the public at large are very supportive of the policy, but echoing other comments, could the Minister give an assurance that the postal vote system will be thoroughly examined? There are genuine causes for concern about that system.
Rachel Maclean
My hon. Friend makes an accurate observation, and he is right that the vast majority of the general public support the policy. I remind Opposition Members that we were elected on a manifesto commitment to introduce these measures. They have been thoroughly debated in both Houses and have received very serious parliamentary scrutiny. Opposition Members are asking the same questions that they have asked time and time again, and I remind them that prior to the introduction of this policy, it was harder to take out a library book or collect a parcel from a post office than it was to vote in someone else’s name. This Government do not agree that that is an acceptable state of affairs in Great Britain today, and I find it quite astounding that members of Opposition parties do.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
If we as a country truly value democracy, it should be in the interests of the state that as many people as possible vote, rather than deliberately turning them away as this Conservative Government have done. Since the Minister has chosen to attack the Liberal Democrats’ legitimate concerns rather than answer questions, I will start again and ask her to answer a specific question: what measures are under consideration to ensure that voters will not be turned away at the next general election?
Rachel Maclean
For the hon. Lady’s benefit, I will repeat the specific answers I have already given. We know that the vast majority of people were able to vote successfully, so I have nothing to do other than remind her that the Liberal Democrats, of which she is a member, supported the introduction of photographic identification in Northern Ireland. It is quite astonishing to me that the Liberal Democrats continue to oppose introducing sensible measures in England that they supported and voted for in Northern Ireland, which is part of our United Kingdom.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
On the day of the local elections, I remember knocking on the door of a constituent who told me that she usually votes, but was not going to because she realised that she did not have the necessary voter ID. That broke my heart: her democratic rights, which she has exercised time and time again, were taken away, and of course she will not appear in that figure of 14,000 people who were turned away.
The Electoral Commission says that ethnic minorities and unemployed voters were more likely to be turned away at the polling station. When we show our constituents around this House, we talk about the struggle for the universal franchise. Let us remember that the establishment that the Conservative party represents did not want women or the working class to have the vote. Will the Minister reflect on our journey towards increasing participation in democracy, and on how this rotten arrangement is robbing people of their hard-won democratic rights?
Rachel Maclean
I will respond to that by asking the hon. Gentleman to reflect on his comments. Is he seriously suggesting that the introduction of photographic identification is not suitable? Does he seriously think that it should be harder to take out a library book than to vote in his constituency today? If he is seriously suggesting that, that—more than anything else—gives us evidence that the Labour party is in no way ready for government. It is not a serious party: it does not take seriously the threat to our democracy from international actors, and would do nothing to tackle the very real issues experienced by ethnic minorities in Tower Hamlets and Birmingham, who are being systematically disenfranchised by the corrupt practices of certain people in their local areas.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I might be a lone voice on the Opposition side of the Chamber, but I reinforce what the Minister has said. The electoral voter ID system for Northern Ireland has been a tremendous success, as is proved at every election. It shows that the system can work.
A short time ago, along with my chief of staff, I visited the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland to be constructive and suggest how we could perhaps do some things better. The Electoral Commission is agreeing to set up hubs across Northern Ireland constituencies, giving people the opportunity to get their voter IDs in person. That has not always been possible in areas of my constituency, so I welcome that commitment, which will be announced, I understand, in early October. Will the Minister consider something similar for the United Kingdom so that everyone can have the advantage of getting their voter ID in person in their own constituency?
Rachel Maclean
I thank the hon. Gentleman for sharing his really practical and useful wisdom from the policy that has been rolled out in Northern Ireland—a valued part of our United Kingdom—where it has been working very well for many years. I note that a much smaller list of documents is used in Northern Ireland and that that has worked effectively. In the Electoral Commission’s recent 2021 public opinion tracker survey, not a single respondent from Northern Ireland reported that they did not have ID and had found themselves unable to vote.
Of course, we must always look at the sensible and practical recommendations from the Electoral Commission. We will continue to do that. Before this roll-out, we put a significant amount of investment into working with civil society and charities. We have made funding available for communications campaigns. It is just a shame that the Labour party and Liberal Democrats did not take the opportunity to amplify our messages among their own constituents. We all have a shared responsibility in this place to amplify messages and communicate effectively, particularly to ethnic minority and disabled voters. I know that is what I did ahead of local elections; I wonder what they did.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Has my hon. Friend the Minister received representations from any colleagues in the House, particularly from Opposition parties, about the arrangements for voter ID in Northern Ireland? After all, those were introduced by the Labour Government of the time and the arrangement is used by Labour at its own internal elections.
Rachel Maclean
My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on, as always. If Labour Members now think that voter identification is so wrong, why are they not campaigning to repeal their own laws? Why should electoral fraud be tolerated in Great Britain but not in Northern Ireland? Do they really believe that most European countries, which require voter ID, engage in so-called voter suppression? They seem to want to take us back into the European Union across all areas of policy; perhaps this is their latest ploy to take us back into the EU.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
For all the bluster that the Minister is deploying, I am not sure that we are any clearer about what she actually thinks. A minute ago, she referred to “international actors”. Which international actors are pretending to be Mrs McGlumpher from the high street, trying to vote? She is deploying a ridiculous argument. The reality is that the Electoral Commission’s research has shown that younger people, ethnic minorities and unemployed people were all disproportionately disenfranchised by voter ID. Those are, of course, all demographic groups less likely than others to vote Tory. Does the Minister understand that those of us looking at the issue with a perspective different from hers think that rather than safeguarding democracy, as she would suggest, it looks very much like voter suppression—“If you can’t persuade them, don’t let them vote”?
Rachel Maclean
No, I do not understand a single thing that the hon. Lady said, which is hardly surprising from the nationalists across there. She thinks this is voter suppression; her party is so keen to break up the United Kingdom and rejoin the European Union, but this is standard practice across the European Union in all manner of elections. The fact that the hon. Lady cannot take seriously the threats to our democracy shows the lack of seriousness that the Scottish National party—[Interruption.] She does not like what I am saying and is chuntering from a sedentary position, but perhaps she ought to listen to a serious Government about the serious actions we are taking.
Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The Government have committed to an independent review of their voter ID changes. Can the Minister tell us who will conduct that review and what its terms of reference will be? If she is not in a position to do that today, can she confirm when she will be able to share that information?
Rachel Maclean
We will make further statements on that process in due course, and we will be subject to the usual parliamentary scrutiny.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Following on from the question of my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald), the Minister’s answers have taken sophistry to new levels. She said that 99.7% of voters were able to vote, but that is only of those who turned up to vote, and many will not have bothered to try and vote. The Government knew that young people, ethnic minorities and the unemployed would be disproportionately affected but they did it anyway. Incidentally, having tried to apply myself, I can attest to the fact that the Scottish young person’s concessionary travel card requires a lot more proof of ID than the London Oyster card for young people. Will she just admit that this Government’s version of voter ID is blatant antidemocratic gerrymandering?
Rachel Maclean
It is right that I put on record once again that everybody can vote across the UK. The methods that have been introduced are free methods available to everybody. On the hon. Gentleman’s other points, I actually take his comments as a compliment and refer him to my previous remarks.
Business of the House
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
The business for the week commencing 18 September will be as follows:
Monday 18 September—General debate on the UK automotive industry, followed by general debate on UK export performance.
Tuesday 19 September—General debate on matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
The House will rise for the conference recess at the conclusion of business on Tuesday 19 September and return on Monday 16 October.
The business for the week commencing 16 October includes:
Monday 16 October—General debate on support for childcare and the early years, followed by general debate on knife crime. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Tuesday 17 October—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill.
Wednesday 18 October—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Energy Bill [Lords], followed by debate on a motion to approve the draft Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) (No. 2) Regulations 2023.
Thursday 19 October—Debate on a motion on birth trauma, followed by general debate on Baby Loss Awareness Week. The subject for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 20 October—Subject to the agreement of the House, private Members’ Bills.
Lucy Powell
Is that it—a general debate, Backbench Business, and rising again on a Tuesday? I wonder why that is: inaction man yet again swerving the parliamentary action. We have more general debates and statutory instruments on the Floor of the House when we return, and then we will be off again. We hear on the parliamentary grapevine that the Leader of the House wants a two-week Prorogation. It beggars belief. We have already clocked up 234 non-sitting days this Session—way more than in previous Sessions. Is this really the legacy the Leader of the House wants? Can she confirm today whether we will have such a long Prorogation? She said her role in Government would be to make this Parliament the most effective in the world; instead she has turned it into a zombie Parliament.
A part-time Government, devoid of any ambition for this country, want to avoid parliamentary scrutiny on the long list of things going wrong: crumbling schools, growing waiting lists, polluted rivers and coastlines, the rising cost of living, and illegal immigration out of control. People need answers and the country needs a plan.
We have also heard this morning that the Prime Minister has been found to have inadvertently broken parliamentary rules—again. Can we have a debate on the Prime Minister’s interests? We all know what he is not interested in: accepting that he is to blame for the problems the country is facing. Talking of avoiding answers and accountability, next week marks the first anniversary of the Government’s disastrous mini-Budget. Will Parliament get an update on the impact that is still having on the economy? Interest rates are up 3%, with mortgage holders paying thousands more. We have soaring inflation, with the weekly shop up well over 10%, and business investment is crippled by a so-called plan for growth. We need answers, and we need accountability.
The Leader of the House backed the former Prime Minister. She sat at the Cabinet table, and she approved those decisions. I give her the chance again today—one that she dodged last week—to apologise for her role in those decisions. Will she ensure that there is accountability and consequence? Government Members might not like it, but these are their decisions. Or is it just more honours for cronies, book tours and consequences only for the many, while the few show no contrition?
The Leader of the House is not the only one avoiding accountability. The new Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero failed to show up after the utter failure of the offshore wind auction. We did not have a statement; the Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero had to be dragged to Parliament with an urgent question, which I thank Mr Speaker for granting. The Minister seemed to have no clue why it was such a historic disaster. Offshore wind auctions might feel like a technical issue, but the Government’s failure to attract any bids will lock us into more expensive and volatile fossil fuels for years to come. No new projects can get under way next year.
There were warnings about this auction for months, and that is why the Irish Government adjusted their price. If our Government had done the same, new offshore wind could have saved £2 billion for families and increased our energy security. Why were those warnings ignored? The Government want to sweep this under the carpet, but families will feel the bite when their energy bills hit the mat. Offshore wind is supposed to be the UK’s leading light. Some 80% of the jobs are outside London. What does the Government’s failure say to those communities? All around the world, Governments are getting ahead in the race for green jobs; meanwhile, this Government have presided over inaction that is costing us jobs. We have a plan—our green prosperity plan. Perhaps the Government should take a look at it. It would slash energy bills for good, create well-paid green jobs, strengthen our energy security and make the UK energy independent.
This all speaks to a bigger truth: the Government are so out of ideas that they have nothing to keep the lights on in Parliament for, nor will they take accountability for their failures or decisions. Is the Leader of the House not as tired as the rest of us are, having to come here week after week with no real business to announce and more things going wrong? I know she will tell us how great everything is and how the problems are everybody else’s fault but theirs, but quite honestly, that is getting boring too. I do not blame the 54% of people who say they would never even consider voting Conservative at the next election. What would they even be voting for?
Penny Mordaunt
First, I am sure I speak for the whole House in putting it on the record that our thoughts are with the people of Morocco and Libya in the wake of the recent tragic events? May I also wish shanah tovah—a very happy, healthy and sweet new year—to the Jewish community celebrating Rosh Hashanah?
I am a Conservative, and I am always happy to take personal responsibility, so let me respond to the points the hon. Lady raises. First, in regard to the Committee on Standards report, she will know that it did not recommend that any action be taken against the Prime Minister. I am happy to get that on record.
I remind the hon. Lady that the work rate of this Government and this Parliament has been to put through 16 Bills—13 of which have received Royal Assent—since the Prime Minister’s tenure started, as well as a record number of private Members’ Bills. In every area of Government, we are delivering.
She mentions energy. We have decarbonised faster than any other nation and led the charge on that.
We have been extremely busy, particularly focused on the Prime Minister’s five priorities, chief among them stopping the small boats. The hon. Lady is new to the post, but I remind her that her party voted more than 70 times against our measures to strengthen borders. We have been working very hard, and the Labour party has been frustrating us. Labour has consistently stood against any measures to combat small boats. Those measures are delivering. Crossings are down by 20%, and those from Albania are down by 90%.
The leader of the hon. Lady’s party is today showing himself again to be Mr Open Borders. He wanted the Home Office to stop all deportation flights, he wanted free movement, he is mooting taking 100,000 illegal immigrants from the safety of the EU and bringing them here to the UK, and he is planning on reversing our ban on people claiming asylum if they have come here illegally. We are working very hard. We are putting Bills through, but the Labour party would unpick that legislation. Time and again, Labour is showing that it is not taking the tough decisions to stand up for the people of this country.
We have seen that in other areas as well. The hon. Lady invited me to look at her energy plan, but it would make this nation less energy secure. We have also seen it today with Labour’s so-called new deal for working people, which I call the trade unions’ charter. Labour says that it will ban unpaid internships, yet its MPs advertise them. Labour says that it will fight for equality, yet in Birmingham, where it is in power, it did not pay women a fair wage. Labour says that it wants homes for all, yet it blocks plans to build them. Labour is the party of ULEZ, the fuel duty escalator, the 20 mph default speed limit and soaring council tax, and every health board it oversees is in special measures. It is no longer the party of working people—we are.
The hon. Lady wants to examine our work rate and record. We are the party of free childcare, of 11 million workplace pensions, of 1 million new businesses, of doubling the personal allowance, of fair fuel and, at times of crisis, of furlough and loans to preserve the livelihoods and businesses of this country. We consistently take action to stand up for the interests of the people of this country.
The hon. Lady echoes the hilarious gag that the Leader of the Opposition made yesterday in his attempt to insult the PM by comparing him to a popular children’s figurine. I am happy to focus on that. I do not think that that line will survive contact with the Prime Minister’s work rate, but let me rise to the bait and return the serve. I think that the Labour leader is beach Ken. Beach Ken stands for nothing, on shifting sands, in his flip flops staring out to sea, doing nothing constructive to stop small boats or to grow the economy. When we examine the Labour leader’s weak record on union demands, border control, protecting the public and stopping small boats, we discover that, like beach Ken, he has zero balls. Further business will be announced in the usual way.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Father of the House.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House arrange for the right person in government to contact me about the Afghan for whom I have been trying to work for the last nearly two years? I have approached the Foreign Office, the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence, but have received nothing useful or helpful back, so could the right person approach me?
I have received the following endorsement from a former colonel in the International Security Assistance Force:
“Because of his service in support of the NATO Armed Forces in the Afghan Theater of Combat Operations,”
this person, whose name I will not give out in public,
“has suffered and continues suffering threats to the life and property of himself. To the best of my knowledge,”
he does not present a
“threat to the safety or national security of any Country of the NATO Alliance.”
The person himself wrote to me today, saying,
“I am sorry bothering you”—
he always apologises for bothering me—and explaining again that his grandfather was killed for not disclosing his location. He writes:
“The Taliban trying everyday to kill me. I feel death every moment. My economy is very weak I can’t longer continue to feed myself. I am hidden day and night…Please help me urgently. Please save my life urgently.”
Could the right person please approach me to say how he and his wife can be extricated, exfiltrated or allowed to leave Afghanistan?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising again that case, which he has raised previously. I have written to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence, but I will happily do so again and I will ask that an official from one of those Department meet him. I know that the Veterans Minister is very aware of those who remain in-country or in third countries, and is focused on those cases.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
It is always revealing to hear the Leader of the House express her increasingly outlandish views of Scotland every Thursday morning. I expect today will be no different. Her efforts last week had the feel of a fever dream, as she treated us to her thoughts on Mary Queen of Scots, the highland clearances and the hundred years war, all in some sort of answer to my comments about Scotland’s remarkable progress on child poverty. Goodness knows what we will get this week, although once again I gently remind her that business questions is for Members of this House to ask about her Government and their policies. We all understand the difficulties of defending this tired, hollowed-out bunch on their last legs, but that is her job—for the moment, anyway.
I wonder, given her claim to have a keen interest in events north of the border, if she has had a chance to look at the report by the think-tank Institute for Public Policy Research on the state of the Union. It suggests that the kind of belligerent, muscular Unionism we see on display from her Tory Benches is now utterly counterproductive, and not just on Thursday mornings but day in, day out. The report highlights the brittle and contemptuous approach of Westminster to Scotland and its people. Professor Richard Wyn Jones of Cardiff University’s governance centre, and co-author of the report, said:
“attempts…to champion a single version of Britishness, to buttress what some have termed ‘the precious Union’, are not only doomed to failure but are likely to be self-defeating.”
Doomed to failure—a phrase that could be applied to so many of this Government’s endeavours: Brexit, High Speed 2 and numerous defence projects such as the Ajax tanks debacle. I could go on. They never listen. They never learn. It might also help the Leader of the House to read an article by respected BBC financial journalist Paul Lewis of the “Money Box” programme, who recently wrote:
“I once coined the acronym Tabis – Things Are Better in Scotland – as a shorthand for the forward-looking social policies of that country. And it gets truer all the time.”
Once again, is it not time for a debate, even in the dog days of this Government, to look at Scotland and learn how, as Paul Lewis said, to do things better?
Penny Mordaunt
I have always advertised the differences across the nations of the United Kingdom and regional differences in England as one of the strengths of the Union, as well as the things that we have in common. The hon. Lady accuses me of talking Scotland down and not celebrating it. Au contraire, if she looks back at my speeches from the Dispatch Box, she will know that is not the case. I am not talking Scotland down but about the SNP running Scotland down.
I am happy to compare our record of stewardship of public services against that of the SNP. Not a week goes by without the SNP messing up some particular sector or service. This week, highlights include the SNP pressing ahead with short-term lets licensing, which on 1 October will see thousands of businesses potentially close in Scotland and put some people in jeopardy of losing their homes, clobbering Scotland’s tourist sector, too. It has also emerged this week that complaints about SNP-administered benefits have increased by 350%, and while the economy recovers and people still have to tighten their belts, the SNP Government think it is a brilliant idea to introduce a congestion charge.
Scotland deserves better than socialist separatist parties. Yet again, the hon. Lady has demonstrated that the SNP is yesterday’s people talking about yesterday’s grievances. It is yesterday’s party.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Is my right hon. Friend concerned, as I am, that the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, which was set up and agreed by this House in 2018 following careful cross-party working for more than a year, has not been implemented faithfully, and has had bits added on that are doing damage to the reputation of our politics? Does she agree that it needs a thorough review to get it back on track, so that everyone who works in this place can have confidence in the scheme, and so that it can restore the reputation of our democracy?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for the work she did to ensure that this important step forward for the House was established. I agree that there are serious concerns about the timeliness and quality of investigations, and other concerns. I and other Commission members look forward to working with the new director and the new Parliamentary Commissioner to ensure that the system operates effectively and as it was intended to do. The Commission took some important decisions regarding the upcoming governance review at its meeting on Monday. I hope the review will also lead to some important improvements that will restore trust in the system. I encourage all colleagues to feed into the review and the Committee on Standards. I thank again my right hon. Friend for the attention she is still showing to this very important body.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
Following last week’s business statement, I thank the Leader of the House for writing to the Secretary of State for Education on my behalf. I am really grateful.
The Backbench Business Committee has been accustomed over the years to managing demand for debates in the Chamber and dealing with a queue of applications. But due in the main to the Government’s very welcome generosity in awarding Chamber time to us, as evidenced again this morning, we currently have no queue. We have one application where the applicants have asked for time in late November. As always, we will always welcome applications for debates here in the Chamber and for time we can allocate in Westminster Hall.
Lastly, will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the 60,000 entrants of the Great North Run, which took place last Sunday, many thousands of whom had to complete the race in absolutely torrential rain, and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), who completed the race?
Penny Mordaunt
First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very helpful advert for Back-Bench time and the debates that hon. Members can apply for. I am very pleased to announce in the business a lot of time for Backbench Business debates. They are an important part of the work of this House. I am delighted, as I am sure all hon. Members are, to join him in sending our congratulations to the 60,000 runners in the Great North Run.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
As the Leader of the House will know, in a little over a month’s time we will go through the unnecessary and archaic ritual of putting our clocks back, thereby plunging the UK into darkness and misery by mid-afternoon for a period of several months. May we have a Government review on the desirability of using summer time in winter? It would cut the number of road accidents, boost tourism and cut energy use. Why don’t we try it?
Penny Mordaunt
May I first congratulate my right hon. Friend on his cover story this week in The House magazine? It is very good to see the band back. He will know that this House has, under recent Administrations, debated these sorts of issues, but I will certainly make sure that the relevant Department has heard his interest. He will know how to apply for a debate in the usual way.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
Two months ago, one of my constituents had to be taken to accident and emergency with a fractured knee after she was mowed down on a path by a reckless e-scooter driver. As the Leader of the House is aware, although it is illegal to use e-scooters on public paths and highways beyond the designated trial areas, they are freely available to buy. They are known to reach speeds of up to 70 mph and have become a menace to drivers and pedestrians right across the UK. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on the regulation of e-scooters?
Penny Mordaunt
I am verry sorry to hear about the incident the hon. Lady refers to and I hope her constituent is making a recovery. She will know she can raise this matter at Levelling Up questions on 16 October and Transport questions on 26 October, and she will know how to apply for a debate in the usual way. It is an issue of concern to many Members across the House.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
We have not had a debate in this House specifically on the issue of sodium valproate since 2017—it has been debated combined with other issues—yet the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency recently issued guidance that shows that not only women of childbearing age need to exercise caution when prescribed sodium valproate but all children and, indeed, all people up to the age of 55. The pregnancy prevention programme is inadequate; it now needs to include men because men can also pass on birth defects. Still too little is known about the transgenerational issues regarding those children who have been impacted by valproate passing conditions on to their children. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that we can have time in this House to debate the matter, or that we hear from the Department of Health and Social Care about how it is going to ensure there is clarity of guidance, so that everyone prescribed valproate recognises the risks associated with it?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that important point. She will know that Health questions are not until 17 October, so I shall write on her behalf to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and let him know about her concerns.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Conversion therapy is an appalling and most cruel practice that is essentially aimed at changing who a person is. In the past five years, the Government have promised again and again to bring forward draft proposals to ban conversion therapy, but so far nothing has come forward. Time is running out. Can the Leader of the House update us on whether draft proposals for a full ban on conversion therapy will come to the House before the next King’s Speech?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that important point. She is right that those are abhorrent practices that sometimes have lifelong impacts on those who have had to endure them. I take this opportunity to thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed so far to the work that the Department has done on the matter. She will know that I will say further business will be announced in the usual way, but I understand the concern that Members across the House have and want to see action taken on this matter.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
As part of my listening campaign, the excellent councillors Gill Mercer and Tony Spooner have warned me of a fly infestation in the Pemberton part of Rushden. I have surveyed the whole area and, sure enough, there is a problem. My excellent parliamentary researcher, Jack Goodenough, has plotted it on the map I am holding, and it is all around one area, right next to the Sanders Lodge industrial estate. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement from the Fly Minister to swat this problem?
Penny Mordaunt
I might be testing the limits of the ministerial responsibility directory if I allocate a particular individual as the Fly Minister, but the normal procedure in such cases is to turn to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. I shall certainly make sure that the Secretary of State has heard my hon. Friend’s concerns, and I wish him and his councillors well in combating this problem.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
My constituent, Judith, a cancer survivor in her seventies, has paid hundreds of pounds a month in energy bills for six years and been told that she is a high energy user. In June, Judith and I worked together to urge ScottishPower to investigate and it turns out that for six years she has paid the energy bills of a family of four next door—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] It has been 14 weeks since ScottishPower found out that Judith’s meter was crossed, and still no progress has been made. She is still paying her neighbours’ bills. Does the Leader of the House agree that ScottishPower’s delay in correcting that error is unacceptable and that no vulnerable person should be going to bed cold at night?
Penny Mordaunt
I hope the hon. Gentleman has seen from the audible response from Members of all parties that we all think that that is an appalling situation. Normally, I would be putting pen to paper to write to all relevant Secretaries of State to highlight poor business practice and poor customer service, but I cannot believe that having heard this case on the Floor of the House ScottishPower would not immediately—today—seek to rectify the situation, alter what is going on with his constituent’s bill and make recompense for the overcharging. I would also expect some compensation for her. I will say to my officials in the Box that we will give ScottishPower until 3pm this afternoon before I get my pen out.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
In Bidwell West and Linmere, to the north of Houghton Regis in my constituency, we are building up to 8,000 new homes. Many residents are in those new homes, but we do not have sufficient section 106 money to increase general practice capacity in that area. There is no health centre going up with those homes, which is simply not acceptable. Health is again getting the short straw in the planning system and we urgently need to sort this out. I think the autumn statement would be a perfect opportunity to resolve the issue of the backlog: the deficit in primary care facilities across the country where they have not been built alongside thousands of new homes.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that again. Having campaigned on the issue, he will know that we are going to change local authority planning guidance this year to raise the profile of primary care facilities when planners consider how developer contributions and funds from new housing developments are allocated. I think that is a big step forward. He wants the situation in his constituency to be addressed. I will make sure that what he has said today is passed on to my Cabinet colleagues, and particularly the Chancellor, in advance of the autumn statement on 22 November.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
A single parent of two young children in my constituency could not afford the bus fare to her DWP appointment, so she has been handed a £280 universal credit sanction. Such sanctions do not deliver employment; they deliver severe anxiety, depression and hardship. Can we have a debate in Government time on the sheer inhumanity of their benefit sanctions regime?
Penny Mordaunt
I gently point out that, as I said earlier, the complaint rate has increased by 350% since benefits have been managed by the Scottish Government, so we will take no lectures on that.
If the case is as the hon. Gentleman says, and I have no reason to doubt him, it does not sound like a good outcome. If he gives the details to my office, I will be happy to assist him in getting this resolved for his constituent.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
The Labour Government in Cardiff, supported by Plaid Cymru, will be introducing a blanket 20 mph speed restriction in built-up areas across Wales from 17 September. In many places, such as outside schools and hospitals, 20 mph is appropriate, but does the Leader of the House agree with many of my Ynys Môn constituents think that this blanket approach will impact main roads and the Welsh economy? Will she make time for a debate on how we should be supporting the Welsh economy, not punishing it?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. This is absolutely insane, even by the standards of the Labour Welsh Government. They have ignored businesses and the public, and they are pushing ahead with this scheme despite huge opposition. The latest estimate is that it will cost the Welsh economy £4.5 billion. More disturbingly, it is going to increase individuals’ fuel bills considerably and be harmful to the environment.
My hon. Friend is right that there are circumstances in which 20 mph speed limits are a good idea, but having them as the default for many roads is crazy. Instead of punishing motorists, Labour should focus on fixing public transport, and particularly the trains, as Wales has the highest cancellation rate in the UK. This situation is what the Labour party refers to as its blueprint for governing Britain.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Reclaim)
Despite repeated assurances given in this Chamber and to his own Back Benchers, the Prime Minister has failed to protect our children from age-inappropriate sex education and the corrosive effect of indoctrination with gender ideology. Now the Secretary of State for Education has refused to make public the findings of the independent review of relationship and sex education in schools. What are this Government running scared of? I suggest it is the legitimate concern and anger of millions of parents and grandparents. So can we have an urgent statement by the Education Secretary in this Chamber, where she can be questioned and cross-examined on these important matters, and not merely another leaked press release to The Daily Telegraph?
Penny Mordaunt
I shall be happy to write to the Secretary of State for Education to raise the hon. Gentleman’s concerns and the issues he speaks about. The next Education questions is on 23 October, so if he has not had a response from her office by then, he will be able to raise the matter directly with her then.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Can we have a debate or a statement before the House rises on Tuesday about the plight of thousands of residents who are adversely affected by RoyaleLife companies going into administration? Four of the 64 sites owned by RoyaleLife are in my constituency and my constituents living on those sites are finding that they have not got any of the basic services now. Rubbish is piling up. The administrators are not even ensuring that that is addressed. This is a really big threat to all those people who have invested their life savings in buying a park home. They are suffering, while they see that the proprietor and owner of that company was the second highest entry in this year’s The Sunday Times rich list.
Penny Mordaunt
I am shocked to hear about the situation that my hon. Friend’s constituents are having to endure. It sounds like an urgent one, so I shall raise it with the relevant Departments to see what advice they can provide to him about how to get it resolved. Pleas that I might make from this Dispatch Box for somebody to step up and take responsibility are likely, because of the situation, to fall on deaf ears, so I shall try to get him some advice about further steps he might take to ensure that the matter is resolved for his constituents.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) said, last weekend, I joined more than 40,000 people completing our Great North Run. This year, at the finish line in South Shields, we showed our great love and respect for honorary Geordie Sir Mo Farah as he completed his final professional race. Will the Leader of the House please put on record the Government’s thanks to one of our greatest ever sportsmen, Sir Mo, for his contribution to sport and athletics?
Penny Mordaunt
First, let me say “good effort” to the hon. Lady for her impressive run. I thank her for the opportunity, which I am sure we all appreciate, to get on record our thanks to Sir Mo, not just for the amazing sporting events and achievements that we have been able to celebrate with him, but for all that he has done in his charitable work, in helping many organisations and in being an inspiration to many people around the world, as well as in this country. So, on behalf of us all, Sir Mo, thank you.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
Active travel is an important policy for this Government and cycle paths are one part of that programme. However, when cycle paths are designed poorly, as is the case in Doncaster, they can be detrimental to towns and cities. May we have a debate on disastrous town planning and what can be done to reverse this trend, before cities such as Doncaster become ghost towns?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear about the situation in my hon. Friend’s constituency. The Government are committed to ensuring that by 2030 half of all journeys in towns and cities are walked or cycled, and enabling more choice about how people get around. That is good for them and for the environment. We have invested more than £600 million in active travel since 2020. That is a record amount of funding, with further investment coming this financial year. Of course, that is a good thing only if local authorities are spending that money well and things are being designed well. I shall make sure that the relevant Departments have heard his concerns and, again, offer some advice as to how he can ensure that this situation is mitigated and in future years rectified.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Figures out this week show that the Government target for secondary school teachers entering training was missed by a whopping 48%. Schools are already struggling to find specialist teachers for their pupils and some schools, including the brilliant Turing House School in my constituency, have had to drop offering computer science at A-level because they cannot find a specialist teacher. The Prime Minister says that he wants our country to be a leader in AI, yet we cannot find the teachers to teach some of those skills. The figures are woeful; only three subjects met their targets—classics, physical education and history. I raised the issue with the Leader of the House back in June and asked for an urgent debate on the crisis in teacher training, recruitment and retention. Given that there is no legislation for us to consider, will she grant an urgent debate in Government time on the issue?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady will know that across all disciplines we have increased the number of teachers by close to 30,000. I am happy to raise the issue of specialist teachers in the specific disciplines she mentioned with the Secretary of State for Education, as Education questions is not until 23 October. We are introducing an enormous amount of legislation but we have given time to the Backbench Business Committee. She will have heard the advert that the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) gave earlier and she will know how to apply for a debate. I encourage her to do so, but I will ensure that the Secretary of State for Education has heard what she said.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
I am concerned about HS2’s unacceptable behaviour in not paying my constituents in Stafford on time. I have heard that residents have had to pay their own surveyors, despite the fact that HS2 is meant to pay for them; local agents are waiting months for payment of bills by HS2; and some constituents have even paid HS2’s outstanding bills in order to have representation. That is clearly outrageous, so can we have an urgent debate on HS2 compensation?
Penny Mordaunt
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her sterling work campaigning on birth trauma and on giving us all the opportunity to discuss that issue at a debate that has been secured, which I announced at the start of business questions.
I am sorry to hear about the situation that her constituents are in. Most compensation claims are resolved and paid promptly, but unfortunately there are some cases where that has not happened. The hon. Lady is clearly campaigning on behalf of her constituents to ensure that they are getting those claims paid in a timely way. I know she has raised the subject with Ministers previously, so I will ensure that the rail Minister has heard her concerns, as Transport questions is not until the end of October.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
Can we have a debate in Government time about the requirements on developers to fulfil planning obligations? In Ackworth, the leader of Ackworth parish council, Martin Roberts, took me to the community facility that has been built by Strata Homes as part of the planning conditions for a large housing development. There is deep frustration in the village that the developers seem to have walked away, left the community facility unable to be opened and have not finished surfacing the roads. Can we have a debate so that hon. Members can express the frustration that people feel about such issues in their area?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman will know how to apply for a debate, but he has accomplished his mission today and we are all disappointed to hear about the company walking away from its obligations. I hope it will make good on those obligations, but I will ask the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities whether it can provide the hon. Gentleman’s office with any advice about how he can help the company to come to that conclusion.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
The Leader of the House will know that Birmingham City Council was the latest to have to declare an effective bankruptcy because of excessive debt and mismanagement. I have raised my concerns about borrowing at Warrington Council in this House many times. With its borrowing amounting to almost £2 billion—10 times core spending—Warrington Council is not just an outlier, but off the Richter scale in terms of the level of debt that the council has racked up. Is it not time that the Government stopped councils acting like hedge funds? Can we have a debate in Government time on what we can do to effectively manage this situation in local councils? Does the Leader of the House agree that it is time to send in commissioners when councils do not take effective action to reduce their indebtedness?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. He is right that, in Labour-run Birmingham, the council blamed everyone else rather than taking responsibility for the situation. It blamed the IT system, the Government and women expecting equal pay. It really must stop passing the buck and take responsibility for its own mess. This comes as a stark warning to Labour-run Warrington Council, which I understand is in debt to the tune of nearly £2 billion and has just approved a £145 million loan to another council, despite that terrible financial situation. I know that my hon. Friend has raised this many times and that the Secretary of State has also asked for an independent review. With regard to other councils that are managing their budgets well, we know that there are still tough times ahead. There are many demands on their services, which is why we have confirmed an almost £60 billion package for local authorities this financial year.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
Women continue to contact me with graphic descriptions of their horrifying experiences of NHS hysteroscopies, enduring appalling and unnecessary pain as the medical establishment appears not to believe that any kind of anaesthesia is necessary. I have raised this issue 10 times in the House. I know that the Women and Equalities Committee is currently conducting a very valuable inquiry into women’s health and I hope that it might consider this issue. Will the Leader of the House have a word with her colleague, the Minister responsible for women’s health, to ensure that her response to that inquiry is as good as it can be and perhaps to push this issue up her to-do list. It is simply not good enough that women are continuing to experience this dreadful trauma.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this very important matter, which will be of concern to many women across the country. I also thank the Women and Equalities Committee for the work it is doing in its inquiry. I will write on the hon. Lady’s behalf to raise this specific issue with the Minister and ask that she contact her office to give her some assurance.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Housing insecurity is not just a housing issue—I see that in my regular MP surgeries across Dover and Deal. It affects the welfare, health and educational outcomes of children. It affects finances and imposes other costs on adult tenants. It is urgent to bring forward renters’ reform. Research by Generation Rent shows that every 15 minutes somebody is evicted under section 21 notices. Can my right hon. Friend confirm the Government’s continuing commitment to this important renters reform, in line with the manifesto promises? Can we know when the Second Reading of that vital Bill is expected?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that matter. She knows I will not be able to give her specific dates, but I will announce them in future business. I can give her the assurance that we are committed to the Renters (Reform) Bill. She will note that the Bill had its first reading on 17 May, and it will include measures to abolish the section 21 so-called no-fault evictions.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I hope the Leader of the House is aware of the Miners’ Strike (Pardons) (Scotland) Act 2022, which was enacted in Holyrood and provides a pardon for miners who were wrongly convicted of certain non-violent offences in the 1984-85 miners’ strike. Can we have a debate on extending that Act to cover England and Wales? Many miners were subject to trumped-up charges and convictions, including Ray Patterson from Dawdon Colliery in my constituency who has sadly passed away. Many others, like Ray, who lawfully exercised their democratic right to withdraw their labour and protest, were wrongly pursued and prosecuted. Extending the provisions of the Scottish Act would be a good start to repairing existing deep divisions, which, sadly, too many are taking to their grave.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that. He will know that Justice questions happened this week. Given that the next opportunity for questions is a little time away, I will write on his behalf. If he could provide me with some further information, that would be helpful. I shall ask the Ministry of Justice to contact him.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
It is clear from the quantity of issues raised with me by constituents at surgeries, and from talking to local schools, that we are seeing a significant increase in the number of families seeking support for children with special educational needs, and that that growth is putting pressure on local providers. Please can we have a debate on special educational needs and disabilities funding, so that we can explore how it is targeted, and factors such as waiting lists and the number of school places?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend raises an important point. He will know that we have published over £1.5 billion-worth of high needs provision capital allocations for the 2023 and 2024 financial years. This is a priority for the Government. As the Secretary of State will not be at the Dispatch Box for a little while, I shall ensure that she has heard the concerns that he raised.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I thank the Leader of the House for confirming that we can have a sitting Friday on 20 October. One important private Member’s Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), deals with worker protection. It has secured cross-party support in both Houses and its importance was underlined this week with reports of sexual harassment suffered by female surgeons in the workplace. As it has now passed its final stage in the other place, with Government support, we need just half an hour to do the same in this place. Will the Leader of the House commit to a short window of Government time, if not on the sitting Friday then at the earliest possible time, to ensure that workers across this country have the protections that they deserve?
Penny Mordaunt
I congratulate all Members who have worked on that Bill, particularly on the cross-party work that they did to secure its passage through the other place when at one point it looked like it might be in jeopardy. I thank all hon. Members who did that, and the Government are very supportive of these efforts. The hon. Lady knows that I have just announced that, subject to the House’s agreement, we will be able to consider private Member’s Bills on 20 October. Our default position remains that, in accordance with the Standing Orders of this House, private Member’s Bills will take precedence on Fridays.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
I want to draw the attention of the Leader of the House to a kamikaze council, which I am afraid is wasting lots of public money. Six years ago, Mid Devon District Council started its own building firm. The chief exec and the deputy ran it, although interestingly they had never even built a sandcastle in their lives. Six years and £21 million later, 3Rivers Developments is broke. Instead of cutting their losses, these ridiculous council officers want to keep it going. Unfortunately, though not surprisingly, it is a Liberal Democrat-run council. Like the gullible amateurs they are, the leader is actually a perfume-packer by day, and his fragrant head of scrutiny has vanished to Venice instead of attending the meetings—I believe to fiddle with a gondolier’s oar. This whole affair is crackers, farcical and expensive. Can we please have a debate in this place on councils’ vanity projects right across the United Kingdom, because councils should not spend public money on projects that they cannot possibly hope to control?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for his question; it does sound a very sorry situation indeed. I am very sorry to hear that his constituents are having to endure misplaced priorities from his local authority. I will certainly ensure that the Secretary of State has heard his concerns, and I congratulate my hon. Friend for getting his views on record.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Last week the Leader of the House told me that the former Prime Minister, her right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), had many achievements in office, and then struggled to name one. Now I understand that the former Prime Minister is giving a speech next week on how the Government can enable the UK to achieve higher growth. Irony really is dead with that one. For the sake of the millions hit by the Tory mortgage penalty, and as an enabler of her Government, will the Leader of the House please grant a debate on the subject of amnesia?
Penny Mordaunt
I look forward to entertaining questions from the hon. Gentleman. I gently say to him that given the Labour party’s track record on supporting business and focusing on growth, he might like to attend the former Prime Minister’s lecture.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Although I recognise the need for more housing, I have to tell my right hon. Friend that my constituents are angry and frustrated at the number of planning applications that continue to be granted for the villages across my constituency, and the main reason is that they lack the infrastructure and public services that should go alongside them. The anger is compounded when planning inspectors overrule decisions by local authorities, which are taken in the best interests of local people. May we have a debate on the whole planning system, and on how guidelines could be adjusted to ensure that infrastructure and public services are adequate when new developments are given the okay?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He knows that we have a good record on increasing additional homes—we have delivered 2.3 million additional homes since 2010—but we have also sought to protect the ability of local communities to play a greater role in their local planning system and ensure that local needs are being met and that beautiful, sensitive developments are being created. He will have heard earlier our plans to strengthen the requirement to look at primary care facilities when such developments are being built, and he will know of the work that the chief planning officer is doing to increase capacity in planning departments to make good decisions. I will ensure that the Secretary of State has heard his concerns, and he will have heard the advert from the Backbench Business Committee. I think that is an excellent subject for a debate and encourage him to apply for one.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
After years of my lobbying the Lawn Tennis Association, and a lot of persistence and hard work from Councillor Lisa-Marie Hughes and all the team at OneRen, it is great to see the tennis courts in Robertson Park in Renfrew being fully refurbished with help from the LTA’s park fund. The previous Labour council had promised a permanent repair, but unsurprisingly that never happened. Will the Leader of the House find time—in the otherwise hectic business schedule, obviously—for a follow-up to my debate of a few years ago on the Murray legacy, to ensure that Andy, Jamie and Judy leave the legacy that they and all Scots deserve?
Penny Mordaunt
I congratulate everyone who worked locally in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency to secure that facility. The Lawn Tennis Association does wonderful work in many constituencies to ensure that these important and accessible facilities are there. I will certainly write to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to thank her and her officials for the role that they played in making the money available. I hope that everyone will engage with the Lawn Tennis Association, which does terrific work.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Dangerous dogs are doing harm. The Leader of the House will know that serious and organised crime is increasingly moving into the lucrative business of breeding such dogs. There was an attack last week in which a child and a 20-year-old man were severely injured. Last year there were nine fatalities, the majority of which resulted from attacks by the so-called American bully XL dog. This dog needs to be banned. I have made representations to Ministers and the Home Secretary, in her typical wisdom, has said that she supports such a ban. May we have a statement setting out that the Government will do just that under the provisions of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, before more people are maimed and more people die?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising this issue, which other colleagues have also been raising over several weeks. We take it extremely seriously, and I know that urgent advice has been commissioned on what steps can be taken, as the Home Secretary set out at the weekend. Beyond that immediate work, we have a number of measures in place to protect people, including penalties under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which can put people in prison for a maximum of 14 years or disqualify them from ownership if they let their dogs get dangerously out of control. This is not just about irresponsible owners, but about people seeing these animals as a particular weapon, and we need to approach the subject with that in mind. I thank my right hon. Friend for raising it. I know the Home Secretary is on the case and I will ensure that colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are also aware of his concerns.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Further to the question from the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), I too would like a debate on special educational needs. The reason I ask is that there was a report last weekend about the Government signing a contract with a consultancy with the aim of reducing the number of education, health and care plans by 20%. We all know the struggles that parents face to get EHCPs at the moment, so I am horrified by the suggestion that there might now be an additional element of demand management put into the system. Children’s right to education should not be subject to that, and there are enough hurdles in the way for parents as it is.
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman will know that SEN provision is a priority for this Government. We have made many improvements to it and increased funding to more than £10 billion in this coming financial year. It is critical that people get provision in a timely way and that children are not waiting, but are able to access education at the start of the school year or when they are due to go into a new school. As I said in a previous answer, given that Education questions are a little time away, I will ensure that the Secretary of State hears what the hon. Gentleman has said today.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I am sure the Leader of the House will join me in welcoming the fact that John Lewis, Tesco and Marks & Spencer are reducing the price of period pants. It is particularly important when we know that 25% of women say the cost is a barrier to them using those products. Obviously it would be better if we could reclassify period pants as a period product, thus ditching the value added tax, as the “Say Pants to the Tax” campaign asks. May we have a debate in Government time on removing VAT on period pants, making them a more sustainable way of dealing with periods, saving women money and giving them more choices, and taking all possible steps to end period poverty?
Penny Mordaunt
I think people would view those items as essential products. The hon. Lady will know how to apply for a debate, but I also suggest that she writes to the Chancellor about this in advance of the autumn statement.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
My constituents have been appalled by accounts of sewage being dumped into the Thames and its tributaries. A recent BBC investigation showed that Thames Water and two other companies had carried out even more dumping than was previously thought. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on this important matter, and can she update me on what action the Government are taking, after many delays?
Penny Mordaunt
Recently there have been a number of reports of dry spills and questions about the legality of what certain water companies have been doing. It is important that monitoring is excellent. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have increased such rates: in 2010 only 6% of discharges were monitored, but at the end of this year I think we will be at 100%—the figure is now in the high 90s. However, we also want to be able to monitor the circumstances in which any discharges are taking place. They have been huge steps forward taken since 2010 in that respect, but there is more to do and we want to see all water companies delivering their infrastructure plans to eliminate storm overflows and similar discharges in short order.
Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
There are currently 1.8 million people on mental health waiting lists up and down the country, including thousands in my constituency. That is a damning indictment of this Government’s record. Despite the staggering numbers, there are rumours that the Government are set to scrap their proposed reform of the Mental Health Act 1983 in favour of more vote-winning ideas. I ask the Leader of the House to scotch these rumours and confirm that this long-awaited and much-needed reform of the Mental Health Act will feature in the King’s Speech?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman knows that I will announce business in the usual way and that I cannot pre-empt the King’s Speech, but I can reassure him of our commitment in this area. We have a proud record of many steps, not only legislative but in funding, towards getting mental health parity with physical health—that has always been our approach and I think it is a concern to many people across the country—and preventive measures to ensure that people are in the best possible mental health. That is particularly important given what we have been through in recent years with the pandemic—they were very difficult times and I think many people are still scarred by them. I shall ensure that the Secretary of State has heard the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, but I know the Secretary of State shares his focus on mental health.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Local newspapers, both online and in hard copy, are vital, and local journalists do a vital job for our communities and for democracy, but next week members of the National Union of Journalists who work for National World—it owns more than 100 local titles, including the Yorkshire Post and, indeed, titles in the Leader of the House’s Portsmouth constituency—are set to begin strike action over the company’s failure to reach a fair deal on pay. Will she therefore grant a debate in Government time on the sustainability of local newspaper titles? Does she share my concerns about the danger posed by owners such as National World hollowing out titles in order to boost short-term profits, prioritising shareholder payouts over journalists’ ability to afford to do their jobs, and cutting staffing to unsustainable levels?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sure I speak for everyone in the House when I say how important local newspapers and local media are, and not just as a lifeline of information for local residents but to assist in the functioning of democracy and holding people to account. The hon. Gentleman mentions my local titles; in my experience, the editors of these papers take very seriously indeed not only their responsibilities to journalists and those in their employ, but their obligations to the community. I am sure many people across this House have had similar experiences. They are important local services and I sincerely hope that they are not disrupted.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
This week marks the one-year anniversary of the death of Mahsa Amini in Iranian custody. As many hon. Members will clearly recall, she was murdered by the Iranian security authorities because she dared to speak up against Government brutality. In that time there has been no accountability for her death or for the deaths of more than 500 protesters across the country. All that the people in Iran want is freedom, liberty, a democratic society, a people-led Government and the rights of freedom of religious belief to be secured for all. Will the Leader of the House join me and others in this House in calling for justice for Mahsa Amini and all the others who have been murdered?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for again shining a spotlight on those important matters, as he does every single week. I think that particular case struck such a chord with many people around the world, and we very much salute the courage that Mahsa Amini and her peers showed in the protests. Many people who protest against the regime, not just from Iran but from the UK and elsewhere, are subject to intimidation and death threats for calling out its barbarity. Everyone deserves human rights; the women of Iran deserve human rights and the ability to live their life as they wish. I know that there will be many events inside and outside Parliament to mark this anniversary, and that they will be well attended by Members of this place. I thank the hon. Gentleman again.
Backbench Business
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Football and Dementia
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House asks the Government to investigate the links between football and sport-related neurodegenerative disease.
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, and to the number of Members across the House who support the motion, particularly my co-sponsors of the debate, the hon. Members for Moray (Douglas Ross) and for Easington (Grahame Morris). To use an old-fashioned footballing term, what a half-back line the three of us would make—although, if the hon. Member for Easington will forgive me, I will take up position on the left. I hope that we have an engaging debate and that, at the end of it, the Government will commit not just to examining the issue but to recognising our duty to support those suffering from football-related neurodegenerative diseases, and that the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council will conclude that classing those as industrial injuries is the right thing to do.
Many of us in this House are passionate about football and can celebrate just how much joy the beautiful game his given so many, but it is utterly tragic that so many of our heroes have suffered so much from diseases of the brain that academic research shows conclusively are a result of head impacts from careers in football. So many of those suffering, as well as their families, face challenging and distressing times, often without the professional and financial support that would make a difference.
Football holds a special place in the hearts of many people in Scotland and right across these islands. It is a sport that brings communities together, fosters camaraderie and showcases incredible talent. However, beneath the glory and the cheers lies a silent but devastating issue: dementia among football players. Dementia suffered by players should be classed as an industrial injury. That reclassification would provide much-needed financial and social support. As parliamentarians, it is up to us to demand that the UK Government and the devolved Administrations use their powers to support those who need early intervention and appropriate care and support.
Football has been an integral part of Scottish culture since the formation of the Scottish Football Association 150 years ago. Indeed, the oldest international game was Scotland versus England in Glasgow in 1872. Generations of players have graced our pitches, showcasing their skills and passion since the establishment of the game all those decades ago. However, the physical nature of the game, especially in the past, when head injuries were not adequately addressed, has left a legacy of suffering. Many former players are now facing the harsh reality of dementia, which robs them of their memories and quality of life. It is a tragic situation, and it is high time that we acknowledged that that is an industrial injury.
The connection between repeated head trauma and dementia is well documented in medical literature. Studies have shown that chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a degenerative brain disease, is prevalent among athletes, particularly in contact sports such as football. The repeated blows to the head during tackles, headers and collisions can result in long-term brain damage, leading to dementia in later life. According to a study by the University of Glasgow, professional footballers in the UK are three and a half times more likely than the general population to die of neurodegenerative diseases such dementia. That alarming statistic highlights the urgency of recognising the condition as an industrial injury.
In 2002, the passing of Jeff Astle at the age of 59 brought the issue of CTE into the public arena. Jeff, an ex-West Brom and England centre forward, was diagnosed post mortem with CTE. He had suffered from that terrible degenerative illness for five years. We should be grateful for the work done by Glasgow University, which conducted a field study of 7,676 former professional football players from Scotland. Although the headline rate is that footballers are 3.5 times more likely than the general population to die with a neurodegenerative disease, that risk increases to five times more likely for developing Alzheimer’s disease, four times for developing motor neurone disease, and double for developing Parkinson’s disease. The evidence is all there; these should be classified as industrial illnesses.
There is also a link to the length of a player’s career. If they played for less than five years, they are 2.26 times more likely to suffer from brain injuries, but if they played for more than 15 years, that figure rises to no less than 5.2 times. There is a demonstrable link between playing football, heading the ball and brain injuries, and we must recognise that now.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I hesitate to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, because he is making an excellent speech and I do not want to disrupt his flow. He will have heard that the Premier League and the Professional Footballers’ Association have launched a £1 million brain health fund to assist former players and their families who are impacted by dementia. I have a foot in each camp, as a former Health Minister and with my Culture, Media and Sport Committee hat on, so I see the issue from a range of perspectives. A dementia diagnosis is a diagnosis not just for the individual concerned, but for their entire family and all their friends, as we know. September is World Alzheimer’s Month. That £1 million health fund is an important step forward, but there are 55,000 male and female former professional footballers in England alone. Does he agree that that fund must be merely a starting point in the work that the various football associations put in to tackle the issue?
Ian Blackford
I am very grateful to the hon. Member, who makes valid points. We must recognise that the people we are talking about—the Jeff Astles and the thousands of people who are suffering, as she has identified—were often paid an average industrial wage; they were not well paid. They are in very serious ill health relatively early in life, and they do not have the financial circumstances to support themselves. They often have to rely on family members, and have to give up work early—let us remember that football players very often went into other careers. We are talking about people who are in many cases financially destitute, so that help from the PFA—with which I have worked closely in preparation for the debate—is welcome, but we cannot get away from our responsibility as a society to recognise football-related dementia as an industrial injury. Let us ensure that there is support for football players, as well as for those who suffer from these conditions in other sports. We cannot leave them, as we have been doing, to die on their own without support. That is the salient point.
The position a footballer played on the park also was a key determinant. Defenders were 4.98 times more likely than players in any other position to suffer from neurodegenerative diseases—perhaps that is not surprising given the propensity for defenders to head the ball. No tragedy better encapsulates the gravity of the risk to defenders than the case of Billy McNeill, the iconic Celtic and Scotland captain. Billy was a legendary figure in Scottish football, perhaps best known for leading Glasgow Celtic to their historic European cup triumph in 1967. Sadly, he became a victim of dementia in his later years. His family revealed how this once mighty figure gradually lost his memory and ability to recognise his loved ones. Billy’s case serves as a poignant reminder that dementia in football does not discriminate.
I recently had the opportunity to speak with Billy’s son Martyn, and as Martyn pointed out, it was not just about heading the ball; it was the multitude of head knocks that were endured in a player’s career. Of course, in those days, players tended to stay on the park regardless of their condition. There were no substitutes back then and little, if any, in the way of physio support.
In Scotland, we also pay tribute to Amanda Kopel, who has fought valiantly to highlight the case of her sadly departed husband, Frank. Frank passed away in 2014 aged 65, having been diagnosed with vascular dementia back in 2008. Frank started his career at Manchester United but is perhaps best known for his 10 years with Dundee United. Indeed, he was the first signing of the legendary manager Jim McLean. I see I have an Arab sitting beside me—my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald). Amanda fought a long time to make sure that the Scottish Government put in place free personal care for those such as Frank, who at the time were excluded from such support, which was available only to those aged 65 or over when it was introduced in 2002.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
My right hon. Friend has correctly identified my football allegiance, not that that was any surprise to him. Frank Kopel was a hero of mine as a young girl. I used to go and watch him and many others running their socks off, and that was the golden era for my team, Dundee United. Amanda Kopel is also a hero for the work she has done. She has been instrumental in moving the dial, and all of us owe her a huge debt of gratitude.
Ian Blackford
I was going to come on to say that. I had the opportunity to speak with Amanda last week, and my goodness, what a stoic figure and what a champion she has been in making sure that the support that was sadly not there for Frank is there for those who followed him. Amanda has rightly campaigned to make sure that those aged under 65 living with disabilities and degenerative conditions such as this can get support. I am glad to say that after a long campaign, fought on a cross-party basis, support was extended in Scotland to those under 65 through the 2019 free personal care Bill—actually, we do not refer to it as that; we rightly refer to it as Frank’s law.
We owe that debt of gratitude to Amanda, who, despite losing Frank in 2014, kept the fight going so that others facing the same harrowing circumstances could get that support. As Amanda said to me last week, this came too late for Frank, but we can help others. Up until the sad passing of Frank, the couple had been a team for a long time, having become childhood friends in Falkirk in 1958 aged eight and 10. She told me that their first kiss as sweethearts came over a game of postman’s knock—a game only too familiar to those of us of a certain age, if I may say so, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] I was referring to myself!
Amanda has supported Frank all her life, but her efforts ultimately meant that so many others were able to get that support. There must be support through access to free personal care, but we still have to do more to make sure that we have early, effective intervention and that critical financial support is accessed through the recognition of these cases as industrial injuries.
I have talked about Billy McNeill and Frank Kopel, but we also recently witnessed the sad passing of Gordon McQueen—yet another legend of our game taken by vascular dementia, lost to his loved ones far too early. We all have our own first love. Mine was Hibernian football club. Dundee United used to be called Dundee Hibernian back in the day. The joy we all have in supporting our heroes leaves us with special memories. When we think of the likes of Peter Cormack and Alex Cropley—Hibernian legends we were blessed to go and watch—now suffering with this terrible disease, it has to act as a wake-up call to all of us. They gave such joy to those of us who went along to Easter Road, but every MP will be able to recount stories of their own heroes battling with this disease. All those players were from an age when, if they were lucky, they were on the same wage as the average worker. Many now face financial hardship while they battle a disease that will ultimately take their life.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
If I can take my right hon. Friend back to Gordon McQueen for one second, his first professional club was St Mirren in Paisley, Renfrewshire. I was contacted by many constituents at the time of Gordon’s passing who wanted to talk about and pass on their memories of Gordon. Another family blighted by this was the Ryden family from Dunbartonshire, with five brothers. John Ryden played for Spurs, among others; George Ryden played for St Johnstone and our deadly rivals, Dundee; Hugh Ryden played for Chester; and they had two other brothers. John, George and Hugh all contracted neurodegenerative diseases. The other two brothers did not. It is a very small sample size, but does my right hon. Friend agree that it is yet more damning evidence of the link between heading footballs and neurodegenerative disease?
Ian Blackford
Yes, it is. I made the point that all of us who support football clubs can think of people we know. Sometimes they are in the public domain, but in many cases they are not. We are not just talking about those who played top-flight football; we are talking about those who played in the lower leagues and in the amateur game. This goes beyond the high-profile public cases we are talking about. The common link is a disease that we know is a direct consequence of heading a football in a game that we all love.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am of the same generation as the right hon. Gentleman.
Jim Shannon
Yes! I can recall well that the footballs in those days were much heavier. They were harder on the foot and on the head, so the dementia and Alzheimer’s that came off the back of heading the ball in those days was much more severe than it is today. I am not taking away from what happens today, but that illustrates the issue of the balls used in football at that time.
Ian Blackford
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, because it is a really important one. The damage that could be done to a player by those heavy leather balls, which could be sodden with water, is very real and marked.
I will come to a conclusion, because I know that others want to speak. Let me thank the Professional Footballers’ Associations in both Scotland and England for shining a light and campaigning on this issue. In particular, we need to thank Tony Higgins of the Professional Footballers’ Association Scotland and Dr Adam White in England for their leadership.
When we talk of footballers who sadly are suffering from football-related brain injuries, it goes way beyond the public cases we know about. There are scores of cases ranging all the way from the Scottish Highland league right up to renowned figures in European football. Just as this ailment does not discriminate, neither should the support that we offer these individuals. By classifying dementia in footballers as an industrial injury, we can ensure that these players receive the support they so desperately need. Financial assistance can cover medical bills and provide for their families, who often shoulder the burden of care. Moreover, it is not just about the money; it is about recognising the sacrifices these players made for the sport and the nation, whatever level they performed at. These people went out on the pitch to do a job and to entertain. Now it is our turn to stand by them as they suffer the consequences of their employment.
Both the UK and the devolved Governments must step up and take responsibility for this issue. The health and wellbeing of former football players should not be relegated to the sidelines. The recognition of dementia as an industrial injury is not just a matter of justice; it is a moral imperative. Dementia among football players is a crisis that demands our attention and action. Reclassifying it as an industrial injury is a crucial step toward providing the necessary support to these players. Moreover, it serves as a reminder that the beautiful game should not come at the cost of players’ long-term health.
Let us honour the legacy of those who brought us joy on the pitch by ensuring that they receive the care and recognition they deserve. It is time to take responsibility and make a positive change in the lives of our footballing heroes.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
I thank the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) for securing this important debate. As the MP for the city of Southend, I am very aware that Southend is known for two things: the longest pleasure pier in the country, and Southend United, a historic 117-year-old club that is very much the beating heart of the city. I have spoken many times about the importance of football to our city, so it is obvious that we should have a keen interest in this important debate. I believe that understanding the correlation between football and dementia is vital, not just for the players, the clubs and the medical profession, but for the families and communities that are inevitably horrendously affected when these conditions develop.
The importance of the studies that have now been done cannot be overstated, particularly the research conducted by the University of Nottingham, which found that footballers are almost three and a half times more likely to be diagnosed with dementia than the general population. That study, which has already been referred to, is incredibly significant. Another study that should be noted was conducted by Swedish researchers, who compared the health records of 6,000 elite footballers with more than 56,000 non-footballers between 1924 and 2019—a huge longitudinal study. They found that 9% of male footballers playing in the Swedish top division were diagnosed with neurodegenerative disease, compared with just 6% in the controlled sample: in other words, footballers are 50% more likely than the rest of the population to develop dementia. However, the most interesting part of that study was that it found that goalkeepers, who rarely head the ball, had no observable added risk of dementia or Alzheimer’s whatsoever.
I am pleased that the increased level of research is now leading to positive action being taken, and like other Members, I very much welcome the introduction of the brain health fund by the Professional Footballers’ Association and the Premier League. Through that fund, we will see £1 million made available to support former players and their families who have been impacted by dementia and other neurodegenerative conditions. I am very proud to say that the Southend United Ex-Players Association is a great exemplar of work in this area. That is really what I want to talk about.
However, I cannot let this moment pass without mentioning that Southend United are facing terrible off-field issues that could tragically see the club being wound up in under three weeks’ time, yet they are continuing to play exceptionally well and defy all expectations. Were it not for the transfer embargo and the 10-point deduction due to the winding-up petition, Southend United would be fifth place in the national league. I take this opportunity to recognise the fantastic efforts being made by the Shrimpers Trust, its chairman Paul FitzGerald, and the entire working group—Liam, Sam, Mike, James and Robert—to keep this 117-year-old club alive. Negotiations are ongoing, but I urge everybody involved in those negotiations, including the chairman of the club, to put all personal interest aside before it is too late to save Southend United.
Coming back to the Southend United Ex-Players Association, that association—which does such great work in this area—is one of the largest in the country, with 465 members. It includes players going back as far as the 1950s, and at least a dozen members of SUEPA have some form of degenerative condition. SUEPA, which was founded and is led by Andy Leeder, provides fantastic support to former players. When they are invited to match days, as they often are, from time to time they feel the need to apologise for their memory failing, saying openly, “It was too much heading of the ball.” SUEPA has seen at first hand the impact of these degenerative conditions on the lives of former players and helps to support them in whatever way it can, from simple things—gestures like presenting ex-Southend United players with memorabilia of their achievements to remind them of the esteem in which they are still held—to completely renovating a garden for another ex-player to improve their quality of life, which has suffered so greatly due to these conditions.
Of course, SUEPA also makes the families aware of the help that is currently available from the Professional Footballers’ Association, and donates on a regular basis to the fantastic Jeff Astle Foundation. SUEPA would like to work more closely with the Professional Footballers’ Association in this area, and I call on the PFA to engage with SUEPA on this hugely important topic. It is my sincere hope that despite the current difficult circumstances that Southend United is facing—I thank the Minister very much indeed for his close engagement with the Shrimpers Trust and all the work he is doing to support the club—we will see SUEPA carry on for years to come, benefiting not just those players who currently play for Southend United but the many Southend United football stars of the future.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southend United West, and I wish her well in her efforts to secure the future of her team. I would like to express my gratitude to the Backbench Business Committee—to my dear friend the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) and his colleagues—for giving us the opportunity to participate in this crucial debate in the House of Commons. I also thank my good friend, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), as well as the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), for their support in securing Back-Bench time for the debate.
I also want to acknowledge the Professional Footballers’ Association and the invaluable contribution of Dr Judith Gates, who is one of my constituents. Dr Gates is a distinguished academic and educator, renowned for her expertise in chronic traumatic encephalopathy, the condition that has been linked to repetitive head impacts in sport. On Monday, in Ferryhill in County Durham, we will witness the launch of Head Safe Football, a new charity with a specific focus on brain-related issues in football. Dr Gates spearheaded that initiative at the request of the footballing community, aiming to provide emotional support, evidence-based knowledge and up-to-date research for footballers and their families.
Dr Gates’ dedication to this cause is deeply personal, because she is the spouse of the former England and Middlesborough footballer Bill Gates. Bill was diagnosed with dementia after a career that included a training programme involving hundreds of headers every day. Unfortunately, that led to headaches with migraines, and caused him to retire from football aged only 30. Bill was a renowned centre-half and is remembered for his prowess in the air, but his legacy is promoting Head Safe Football and raising awareness of the link between repetitive head impacts and CTE. I also commend the Scottish Football Association, as the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber did, on its proactive stance on addressing CTE and other brain diseases that are caused through football. Its efforts—including research initiatives, concussion protocols, restrictions on heading in youth football and limits on repetitive heading in training—have set a commendable example.
The evidence overwhelmingly supports the link between repetitive heading of a football and brain diseases. Several people have suggested to me that that link is theoretical, or that there is some doubt about it, but there is absolutely no doubt: there is a huge amount of evidence, both at home and from abroad, and I will mention some of those academic studies later in my speech. My late father was a coalminer, and sadly, miners were subjected to many industrial diseases including pneumoconiosis, chest diseases, and vibration white finger through the use of pneumatic power tools. Many of my constituents worked in the textile industry—in the rag trade—and many of those women machinists suffered Dupuytren’s contracture as a result of their work.
All those conditions are recognised as occupational diseases.
I am looking at the Minister; I do not know whether he has the power to direct—or he could ask—the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council to look at the issue. Until CTE is formally recognised as an industrial disease, the compensation that the people involved and their families so richly deserve will not be available to them. We often focus on the top-flight celebrity professional footballer, but many footballers who do not play at the highest level have been similarly exposed to repetitive brain injury. They are living in hardship and we have a duty of care to them.
I want to mention again the study that the University of Glasgow carried out quite recently, in October 2019. It revealed a clear connection between professional football players and neurodegenerative diseases. The research compared the mortality rates of more than 7,600 former Scottish footballers with a general population sample of more than 230,000 individuals—a very large sample. The findings indicated that the mortality rate due to neurodegenerative diseases among the former professional footballers was three and a half times higher, with notable increases in Alzheimer’s disease, motor neurone disease and Parkinson’s disease.
Another study, by the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, published in The Lancet here in the UK, showed that footballers are 50% more likely to develop dementia compared with the general population. The research involved comparative analysis of the health records of 6,000 top division Swedish players and over 56,000 non-footballers. The study also explored the contrast between outfield players and goalkeepers. Researchers discovered that, as we might expect, outfield players faced a much higher risk of Alzheimer’s and other types of dementia compared with the general population. In contrast, goalkeepers, who seldom head the ball, showed no increase in Alzheimer’s, dementia or similar conditions.
The World Health Organisation says that between 5% and 8% of the general population over the age of 60 have dementia. However, the figure is different for England’s greatest ever team, the 1966 World cup winning team—we are not being partisan in this debate, but that victory was achieved under Harold Wilson’s Labour Government; I think we also won the Eurovision song contest that year. Research carried out by “Sky Sports” news found that 46%—almost half—of that World cup winning team were suffering from some degenerative brain condition such as Alzheimer’s disease.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I thank my good friend for giving way. I had actually forgotten that England won the World cup in 1966; it is not something we hear often.
The hon. Gentleman has been dealing with the issue of scepticism. Does he agree that many former wingers actually worked the connection out? They were crossing the ball and worked out that the high-profile cases involved either centre halves heading the ball out or centre forwards heading the ball in.
Grahame Morris
That is a good point. Academic studies have identified that goalkeepers are not at any more risk than any other member of the population, but centre halves and centre forwards certainly have been. I am talking not just about the 90 minutes of football, but the many hours of training—consistently heading the ball. The general community and football authorities have a duty of care to the people who are suffering.
I want to mention another academic study, from Boston University in the United States. It identified CTE in young amateur athletes who played contact sports. After examining post mortem the brains of 152 participants who had died under the age of 30, it found that 41.4% had signs of CTE. More than 70% of those diagnosed were amateur athletes. The figures are shocking. It is imperative to pursue further research to determine not whether there is a link—there is; that is not in dispute—but whether there is a safe threshold for heading the ball. The ideal level is zero, but football authorities must undertake comprehensive research to fulfil their duty of care to players and establish a head-safe level.
I am not anti-football; I love our national sport, but I want it to be safe. I want us to recognise our responsibility to former players who are now suffering from these terrible conditions. Players themselves are rightly concerned about the risks associated with heading. A study by the Drake Foundation found that 66% of amateur footballers feared the impact of heading the ball on their health, with 70% advocating for guidelines to restrict heading in training and 48% desiring reduced heading in matches. There is also substantial support for extending rules in youth football, with 56% of parents endorsing restrictions on heading in training for children up to the age of 18.
The onus lies squarely on football authorities to ensure that their protocols and practices prioritise player safety. That includes ongoing research, immediate reductions in heading during training and matches, and a willingness to adapt the game to mitigate risks. There is no doubt that the game has changed. When I was first watching the game, it was much more physical. There were substitutions, but I think only one was allowed. The game has evolved and changed and it is right that it has. There will inevitably be a shift in the way football is played, but such evolution is inherent to the sport.
I hope SNP Members do not mind me mentioning the recent England-Scotland match on Tuesday night; I do not mean to be divisive—[Interruption.] I have forgotten the score already. I am not gloating.
Chris Stephens
I just want to put on the record that Scotland do not do too well in football against lesser nations.
Grahame Morris
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that.
The England-Scotland match was the 150th anniversary of international football, but I am sure it bore little resemblance to the inaugural England-Scotland international game in 1872 in how it was played; I do not just mean the longer shorts and so on. So the game does change and that is not a bad thing. It is critical to recognise that player safety should not be perceived as a threat to the game. Instead, it should be viewed as a new chapter in the ongoing development of a sport that we all cherish.
To safeguard football for generations to come, we must wholeheartedly support the concept of head-safe football. From a Government perspective, the implications are clear: we should adopt a public health approach. The Minister holds a crucial role in funding education and awareness efforts to future-proof football for today and tomorrow. That includes raising awareness about the risks associated with repetitive heading and its links to degenerative brain disease.
The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber mentioned the former West Brom striker, the legend Jeff Astle, who died in 2002 from a neurodegenerative disease associated with heading the ball. The coroner ruled he suffered death through an industrial disease, although it is not identified officially as an industrial disease. It is worth noting that my constituent Dr Judith Gates has diligently lobbied the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council over the past three years to recognise CTE as an industrial disease. Despite presenting extensive and authoritative information and research, the IIAC has unfortunately fallen short and failed in its duty to acknowledge this disease. I hope the Minister will be able to assist in his closing remarks in persuading the IIAC to look at that again. The evidence supporting that recognition is overwhelming and includes numerous peer-reviewed studies and coroner verdicts. It is high time to prompt the IIAC to step on to the pitch and fulfil its responsibilities by acknowledging the issue and taking the necessary actions.
Football holds a special place in our national psyche. It is a sport enjoyed by millions of people each week. It is evident that participation is on the rise. The professional football landscape is evolving, with National League North team South Shields transitioning to a full-time model, signalling growth even in the lower divisions, yet the most remarkable growth lies in the Women’s Super League and Women’s Championship.
The Lionesses have been a source of inspiration for the nation. We have had tremendous success and it is heartening to witness more young girls embracing football and getting involved in active sport. However, as the women’s game expands, it brings new challenges because medical studies indicate that female athletes are almost twice as likely to develop CTE as their male counterparts. I wholeheartedly support the surge in women’s football, but amidst the growth the safety of players remains paramount. Given the additional risks faced by female athletes, I hope the WSL will be a trailblazer in establishing head-safe football.
Football is a tight-knit community, and it must address this issue both now and in the future. Clubs that have prospered thanks to the skills and contributions of players such as Bill Gates, my constituent, have a responsibility to prioritise the wellbeing of their players. It is imperative that we take action to support a generation of players who are currently facing the challenges of degenerative brain diseases such as dementia and Alzheimer’s. With the clear connection between repetitive heading and CTE now established, it is high time we focus on increasing awareness and providing education at all levels of the game. Additionally, we should implement policies and procedures to restrict heading, whether during training sessions, or in actual games.
I ask the Minister to make it clear to the football authorities that this is their opportunity to deliver head-safe football, reducing the risk today and progressing the research to understand if there is a safe level of heading. If as an industry—a multi-billion-pound industry at the highest level—the football authorities do not accelerate their action on this matter, the Minister must be clear that the Government will have no option but to intervene to protect public health.
I would like to end with the words of my constituent Bill Gates, who on his diagnosis told his family, “It is too late for me, but I want to plant a tree, so others can benefit from its shade.” I thank Judith, Bill and the whole family. I will do everything I can to future-proof football for today’s and tomorrow’s players. I hope the Minister will commit to doing the same.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I thank my good friends, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) and the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), and the hon. Member for Southend West (Anna Firth), who made an excellent speech; I know her predecessor, the great David Amess, would undoubtedly have been here taking part in this debate, pushing the case not only for Southend United, but for his beloved West Ham United. I am sure that when West Ham won the Europa conference league he was looking down with a smile.
I also commend Labour Member of the Scottish Parliament Michael Marra, who has been leading some debates on this in the Scottish Parliament. I commend, too, the Daily Record for its support for that campaign. I was very pleased that it published a story highlighting this debate. Michael Marra and the Daily Record have had the support of former footballers who have written to the authorities asking that the diagnosis of an industrial injury be put in place, including Alex McLeish, former Scotland manager, and the great Sir Alex Ferguson.
We have now heard evidence of industrial injury from Glasgow and Nottingham universities and Boston University in the United States, and it is clear that there is definitely a link and that football injuries such as head injuries or heading the ball are leading to dementia, Alzheimer’s and other conditions. Why is that? The Daily Record published a story about this debate and I made the mistake—a schoolboy error as it would be known in football—of reading the comments afterwards; a journalist once told me, “Never read the comments of a story you’re mentioned in.” There was a lot of scepticism in the comments. What frustrated me was people saying that there was no link.
As I said in my earlier exchange with my good friend the hon. Member for Easington, I am doing some work with Rangers football club former players association on this: they are very interested in this topic because they also think there is something in it. They have been providing support, thanks to donations from their supporters to former players. That includes paying for respite care for the families of those former players who have dementia and ensuring that family members can have a break for an hour or two a week to go off and do shopping and other things. The work the association is doing in this regard should also be commended.
There was initial scepticism even within the former players community when this link was first talked about, but the advocates of there being something in it and of the fact that the evidence is now clear includes former wingers. They have worked out that they were running down the wing and crossing the ball and it was then being headed by the centre-half or centre-forward, and it is they who are now the high-profile cases—many of the great players that have been mentioned in this debate.
I want to highlight the issue of wages, too, which has also been touched on. There are some sceptics who think we are advocating for rich people. Telephone number-type salaries flash up on Sky Sports News on transfer window final day, but that does not reflect the situation for many who are caught up in this. As has been said, those who played at the top level in the ’60s and ’70s probably earned twice the amount of an average tradesman and those in the lower leagues would have been getting about the same wage as an average tradesman. Some play, of course, for the love of the game, and they might only get £10; I remember some football clubs in Scotland even in the 1990s would just pay travel expenses and £10 for playing, and there were reasons for that, of course.
Gordon Smith, the former Rangers, Brighton and Hove Albion and Manchester City player, and former chief executive of the Scottish Football Association, had a chat with me about this issue, when he heard it was to be debated. He told me that when he signed for Rangers football club, Jock Wallace, the then manager, told him, “I have been trying to sign you, Gordon, for the last four seasons.” Gordon Smith did not know that because, at the time, the registration of a player was held by the club, and if the club chose to keep the player, they would not be told that another football club was interested in them. That was driving wages down.
We need to hear from the Minister today to ensure that this matter is recognised as an industrial injury in the work he is doing with his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions. As was touched on by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the ball that was used in the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s was a lot heavier and harder, especially if people were playing in inclement weather. It might surprise you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but in Scotland we do get inclement weather during the football season. If there was rain or the ball was caught in mud, it would become even heavier, and that is almost certainly one of the reasons this situation has come about.
It is fairly clear that there is cross-party consensus on this matter, and I thank all the Members who signed up to have this debate today. I look forward to hearing from the Minister, because we now need a strategy with his Department and the Department for Work and Pensions so that our heroes can get the support they need.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I am sure that anybody who is interested in football and the many people whose families have been affected by neurodegenerative diseases, such as dementia, will be interested in what is being said today. I am sure they will want to support the calls that have been made for research, proper safety provisions and proper support.
There is no doubt that dementia is more prevalent among football players than in the general population. We have heard about the research that underlies that. The recent studies that I have been looking at have found that professional footballers are three and a half times more likely to die from neurodegenerative diseases than the general population. That is quite a statistic. We have also heard about the study in Sweden that concluded that male football players who had played in the Swedish top division had a significantly increased risk. That was among outfield players, but not goalkeepers. The evidence is all pointing in the same direction. It is not necessarily new evidence, either. We have known about this issue for some time, with studies from as early as 2017 showing a great risk of dementia among professional football players. I say this as a very big football fan, but I know there are risks that come with sport. There are risks associated with participating in football, but those risks need to be balanced against the need to keep people safe.
This debate is welcome, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) and colleagues who secured it. I put on record my gratitude to Tony Higgins, who was mentioned earlier. He gave a helpful briefing, which I attended, detailing the issues around football and other sports and neurodegenerative diseases. It was thought-provoking, particularly in relation to the health impacts on people who are at their work. I usually look at football through a different lens—I am enjoying the sporting element—but we cannot take away from the fact that the people on the pitch who we watch in football stadiums and on the telly are doing their jobs. Perhaps it is because we are accustomed to looking at it through that particular lens that we are maybe neglecting to consider the welfare of those participating. As a football fan, this is not the situation I want for the sport that I enjoy so much. I cannot think that fellow fans would want their enjoyment of football to be at such a significant cost to health. Things need to change, and it is high time that we saw that happening.
I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) mention women’s football. I had a fantastic constituency visit a couple of weeks ago to the wonderful Busby Girls AFC. It is a new and young club, but it already has hundreds of girls out there playing. Seeing that made me incredibly happy, and I say that as someone who is still smarting, four decades on, from being told at school that girls do not play football and having my football confiscated. I do not think I will ever let go of that issue. Girls do play football, and it absolutely is for girls. Hats off to all the folk at Busby for the brilliant work they are doing.
It is heartening that we can watch women’s professional football and enjoy it much more easily now, because it is there for us all to see. We do not have to hunt it out so much; there are so many more opportunities to see women at the top of their game playing football, and so many young girls are inspired by that. That is to be encouraged.
The challenge is that we cannot be entirely clear about the impact that heading the ball has on women and girls and exactly how it is different from men. I have looked at that question, and the answer is we do not know enough about it. We know it is not good, but we do not know the detail that underlies that, and that is unacceptable. I am aware of reports about Sheila Parker, who captained the England women’s team in the early 1970s. She was renowned, apparently, for her heading of the ball with frequency, gusto and accuracy. Her family believe that that has caused significant damage to her health. I send my best wishes to Sheila and her family, but it makes me think, and that kind of sad situation is a glaring example of the thing we cannot escape: we just do not know what the impact is on women of heading a football, and the more that we see women playing football and the more that women are playing football, the more pressing it is that we close the gap in research, and sharpish. Women and girl footballers deserve far better, so research and further discussion are necessary as a matter of urgency.
It is not only girls’ clubs that need us to focus on this issue. I also recently visited Giffnock Soccer Centre, which is doing fantastic work at all levels and bringing the whole community into the footballing world. I never like to miss an opportunity to speak about the Mighty Arthurlie in Barrhead. All these clubs and all the other great clubs in East Renfrewshire and all other constituencies also deserve our attention. We have heard clearly that this issue does not just affect those playing at professional level, and the hon. Member for Easington quoted stark figures on brain injury in amateur athletes. We need to focus on this issue at all levels of football, not just the highest levels. I say the highest levels, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber mentioned, I am a lifelong and very enthusiastic Dundee United fan. That can be character-building—that is probably the most constructive way for me to describe it.
Kirsten Oswald
My hon. Friend points out that there are other teams that give us grey hair.
Chris Stephens
My hon. Friend seriously believes that supporting Dundee United is character-building, but it is not as character-building as being a Partick Thistle supporter. You need nerves of steel when you go to the theatre of dreams, Firhill stadium.
Kirsten Oswald
My hon. Friend is tempting me to giggle in an unparliamentary manner, which I will avoid doing. I will go back to the serious remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber in opening the debate. I thought that his speech was powerful and timely, and he made some important points. I was delighted that he spoke about Frank Kopel.
I said earlier in the debate that Frank Kopel was a hero of mine. He was a shining star in an era of shining stars at Dundee United. We were at the pinnacle of our success—I am sure those times will come again—and it was a joy for a football-mad wee girl to watch Frank and his fellow players at that time.
My right hon. Friend also spoke powerfully about the huge contribution of Frank’s wife, Amanda Kopel. She has made a huge difference to so many people. She is a giant, just like Frank, and they have both made their mark. We really owe them, and all of the families who have experienced the utter sorrow of what dementia and other neurodegenerative diseases do, to keep on at this subject.
We know that there is a higher incidence of these terrible diseases among people who play football. The figures noting which football positions people have played in show that, without doubt, there is a link. Despite the availability of very clear evidence over a number of years, it is a shame that more concrete action has not been taken. I would like to see concrete plans to minimise damage in the future. We cannot keep repeating the mistakes of the past.
It is time to consider reclassifying this as an industrial injury. It is absolutely clear what is happening. It is time to look at what all of the structures and guidance for men’s and women’s football say, and make sure that the appropriate levels of safety and support are built in. It is also time that we all change the way we think about football, so that it can remain a safe and enjoyable pastime well into the future.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, may I congratulate the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) on introducing the debate, all Members who have made contributions, and those who will reply from their Front Bench? I look forward very much to the Minister’s response. I do not mean to put any pressure or expectation on him, but we are very fortunate to have a Minister who always tries to give us a response that is constructive and helpful. We as MPs are trying to garner a response for our constituents. I know that he will listen to all of the points of view put forward and then respond in a way that helps us.
We have asked the Government to investigate the links between football and sport-related neurodegenerative disease. A 2019 public study revealed that football players were at increased risk of diagnosis of neurodegenerative disease. The risk increase was observed for Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias, but not for all types of neurodegenerative disease, and for outfield players but not goalkeepers. As others have said, if three or four of the 11 who play in a team do not have it but the others do, there must be an issue. The call for this to be classified as an industrial injury is heavily backed in Northern Ireland as well, so it is important for me to be here to give that Northern Ireland perspective.
Last year, some of Northern Ireland’s most iconic footballers reunited to raise funds for Dementia NI at the Spirit of ’82 event in Belfast. It was held in memory of their good friend and teammate, the legendary Northern Ireland manager Billy Bingham, who had been living with dementia for 16 years before he passed away on 9 June 2022. I do not think there is much between my age and that of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber, but I am old enough to remember Northern Ireland playing at the World cup in Spain in 1982. I had the opportunity to meet all the football players and Billy Bingham, who was an inspiration to me at that early age. He was an inspiration on the pitch as a footballer, and he then became an inspiration as a manager.
I was also in Mexico in 1986, which was before I got married—everything changes when we get married, and we are not able to get away the same as we used to—and on coming home I had the opportunity to get the autographs of the Northern Ireland team and Billy Bingham. A Brazilian football supporter and I swapped a Brazilian shirt and a Northern Ireland shirt, so I have in my office a shirt with the autographs of all the Northern Ireland team of 1986 plus Billy Bingham. I pass that shirt every day and remember very clearly that he was a player who inspired me and inspired us all, yet he passed away as a result of the game he played so well. It is important to be here today to speak on behalf of the Billy Binghams of this world and others who have suffered and passed away.
It is fantastic that high-profile footballers recognise the link. That is also true of retired managers such as Sir Alex Ferguson and Alex McLeish. They were great players who we all looked up to as young boys and young men. That emphasises the importance of investigating this link further and gathering the evidence.
A study has found that footballers are 50% more likely to develop dementia than the rest of the population—that is evidence, factually based and cannot be ignored—fuelling calls to restrict rules for heading a football. Classifying it as an industrial injury would mean that former footballers suffering with the disease would be able to claim certain benefits for industrial injuries that occurred in the workplace. Their employment and the source of their income is the sport that they play. I support those calls, given the evidence, which is becoming clearer. My belief has been reinforced by all Opposition and Government Members who have spoken today. They have been galvanised by what they have heard in their own constituencies and from their own personal experience. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) spoke of what Rangers football club is doing. It is really important to have that in place.
The other evidential base is from football in the States—or soccer, as they call it. I find it hard to get my head around the word “soccer”, because we call it football. In the US, they have imposed guidelines limiting players’ exposure to heading, despite controversy over whether dementia is caused by heading the ball. The fact is that, as has been said, they have introduced precautions. The hon. Members for Easington (Grahame Morris) and for Glasgow South West referred to evidence from the universities. There is quite clearly an evidential base in the United States of America.
Chris Stephens
I have always wanted to intervene on the hon. Gentleman. He has mentioned Billy Bingham and footballers in Northern Ireland. I am sure he will agree that it is important to note that the wages in Northern Ireland football are not at the elite level that we read about in all the sensational headlines in the newspapers. Does he therefore agree that access to the industrial injury benefit will help former footballers and their families?
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The wage structure in Northern Ireland is nowhere near that level. There is some expectation of teams in the Irish league. There have been many buy-outs and clubs with lots of money-making financial investments, but let us be honest: in the years past many people probably played because they loved the sport. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
Will the Minister undertake discussions with our American counterparts and share information so as to ensure that we have the most accurate information available on which to base our response to tackling this issue?
Grahame Morris
The hon. Gentleman makes some great points about international comparators and co-operation. Earlier he raised the issue of the old fashioned footballs—we used to call them caseys—that would be soaked with water. They were like heading a cannonball. It has been suggested to me in mitigation that in the modern game the footballs are much lighter, but that is not actually true. They may be of a different construction, but they are the same weight and they travel much faster—40, 50 or 60 mph. If I am not mistaken, Peter Lorimer, the Scottish footballer who played for Leeds—or perhaps it was a Manchester City player—had the record for the hardest shot, of more than 70 miles an hour. Imagine being hit on the head regularly—that must cause some damage. I do not think the new construction of the balls is any mitigation.
Jim Shannon
The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) and I are of a certain vintage, and therefore probably remember those footballs better than most. The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) is absolutely right. It is about the force and the distance of the ball, how hard it is hit and the person on the receiving end.
There is no reason that the correlation and the evidential base that everyone has presented should not be considered for industrial payments for our retired footballers. There is much cross-party support, mostly from the Opposition Benches, though that does not take away from the Government side—those who have spoken are of the same mind. There is support from lobby groups and football clubs that have contacted us. The information that we have received over the years from interactions with retired footballers and ex-managers cannot be ignored. We must do our best to support them. This debate is so important to all constituents and footballers.
We have a love of football. We cherish the game of football on a Saturday afternoon. In my house, my wife supports Leeds, my second son Ian supports Chelsea, my third son supports Arsenal, my eldest son supports Ipswich, and I support Leicester. At 10 minutes to 5 on a Saturday it is interesting when the scorecard comes in.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who I believe has a wee soft spot for one of the Glasgow teams, and not Partick Thistle.
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate on such an important subject, given that so many young people across these islands partake in football-related activity on a regular basis. I thank all Members from across the House for their heartfelt contributions. It is clear that we all love the game of football, but it is also clear that we want improvements in this area for former footballers.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) not only on securing such an important debate, but on his informed contribution. He knows, as I do, that this issue is keenly felt in Scotland, with high-profile public campaigns from the families of those affected, as well as world-leading pioneering research carried out in our Scottish universities. Such research undertaken by the University of Glasgow has found that professional footballers are three and a half times more likely to die of neurodegenerative diseases than the general population—three and a half times more likely to die of dementia, Alzheimer’s or other associated diseases. A previous study from the same university in 2021 found that defenders are five times more likely to develop dementia than the general population are.
Those of us who have played the game at any sort of level—competitive or otherwise—or who are just passionate about the sport will know that heading the ball is an art form in itself and an intrinsic part of the game. It is a skill that not many who play the game can fully master: a mighty last-ditch clearance by a committed defender; a leap and flick on to the back post; or my own favourite, the diving header goal—a majestic sight. These studies show us that they are also dangerous. That is why we must be confident that we are doing everything we can to ensure the safety of all the young people who enjoy football today, to protect their health now, in the long term and in later life.
As my right hon. Friend mentioned, Billy McNeill was one such defender—a man with a glittering playing career in the game. He always comes to mind when discussing dementia in football. He was a hero to many, myself included. Born in Bellshill, he was the first man from the United Kingdom to put his hands on the European cup and hold it aloft. He was world-renowned for his heading capabilities. In 2017 his family announced he was suffering from dementia, and in 2019 he sadly passed away. I would like to take this opportunity to place on record my gratitude to the Billy McNeill Commemoration Committee in Bellshill for the fantastic work it has done and continues to do in raising awareness of Billy’s life and of dementia in football, and in ensuring that the story of the great Billy McNeill will be told for generations to come.
A study published in 2019 in the New England Journal of Medicine, jointly funded by the SFA and the Professional Footballers’ Association Scotland, compared the causes of death of more than 7,000 Scottish male former professional footballers born before 1976 against those of more than 23,000 matched individuals from the general population. It was the first to definitively identify a link between football and dementia. Responding to those findings back in 2019, the head of Alzheimer Scotland welcomed the findings of the team led by Dr Willie Stewart, stating that they provided
“what can only be described as conclusive evidence that there is a definitive link between playing professional football and a higher incidence of dementia and other neurodegenerative diseases.”
Like many colleagues, I met Tony Higgins of the PFA Scotland—and of Hibernian folklore—here in Parliament a few months back, and heard about the real-life examples of former footballers facing ill health. The PFA Scotland is committed to this issue not only through funding excellent studies such as the one I mentioned, but by investing in long-term aftercare for former footballers and their families, many of whom played the game at the very highest level but in an era that did not bring the financial rewards or comforts that many of today’s players enjoy.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The hon. Member is making a very powerful speech, among many powerful and important speeches, about a sport that we all love. We have talked a lot about professional and elite football, but when it comes to the young—I declare an interest, as my nephew plays junior football—there is not the same financial reward, but the same danger is involved in heading a football. Do we need to take a much broader approach and ensure that those at all levels, right down to youth football, are encouraged to tell players about the dangers?
Steven Bonnar
The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. Boys and girls of five and six in young and junior football are the professional players of tomorrow. We need to protect them right the way throughout their involvement in the game, because that will be for the benefit of all. Football brings so much joy and goodness to our communities—we all know that—but we must safeguard our young players.
A study in Sweden published earlier this year, which has been mentioned, concluded that male football players who had played in the Swedish premier league had
“a significantly increased risk of neurodegenerative disease compared with population controls. The risk increase was observed for Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias…and among outfield players, but not among goalkeepers.”
That further solidifies what we know about the game and what the Scottish studies told us. The risks have been known for several years now. Studies as early as 2017 showed the greater risk of dementia among pro footballers, particularly defenders. No time should be wasted in moving forward with further research to properly define the main risk factors and what must be done to minimise them. But we are not much further forward at all from 2017. It is unfortunate that despite evidence having been available on this issue for several years, we are still to see more concrete action taken. There have, of course, been some changes in light of those studies, such as children younger than 11 not being taught to head the ball in training conducted by the SFA, but is that really going far enough? Another way to look at that statistic is that we are still currently allowing children aged 11, 12 and 13 to persistently head the ball in training.
Another progressive step, it could be said, is the introduction of concussion substitutions in the English premier league, a new rule that allows for a permanent substitution to be made if a player suffers a head injury. The new rule was approved in January 2021. So far, I am aware of only one attempted use of the rule so far in England. However, there was an error in the paperwork which meant that the concussion substitute could not in fact be utilised. It was interesting to hear comments about that from Tottenham Hotspur manager, Ange Postecoglou. If we are going to do this right, we must ensure that safety, not paperwork, is the most important thing. I know of no concussion substitutions taking place in Scotland yet, although we have adopted the five substitutions rule—up from the previous three subs per match. That encourages managers to use a substitution should a player take a knock to the head during a match.
Other advice on heading the ball seems to be limited. While lighter footballs are now commonplace, as the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) pointed out, they travel a lot faster and are hit a lot harder in the modern game. We must ensure we do everything we possibly can to protect young individuals now, as well as in later life.
Some campaigners have been calling for a complete ban on the practice of heading the ball to eliminate the increased risk of dementia among footballers. We have all heard about the love we have for the game today. I do not know how that is manageable or workable in the professional game. As I said, heading the ball is an intrinsic part of the match. Some will tell us that rugby, mixed martial arts and boxing also come with heightened health risks—there is the potential for serious injury, and perhaps even fatality. That is undeniable. There must always be a balancing of the sport against the risk. We as legislators and those who govern the game should always seek to make things safer wherever we possibly can.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) and my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) on securing this important debate.
Football is at the heart of so many of our communities, bringing people together in both victory and defeat. At all levels, playing football brings immense benefits to our physical health, mental health and sense of belonging. But despite its contribution to our society, culture and economy, there is now increasing evidence that footballers in both the men’s and women’s game are at greater risk of dementia. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) suggested, former footballers may be 3.5 times more likely than others to die from a neurodegenerative disease. In recent years, we have seen many of our beloved former players live with, and tragically die as a result of, dementia. That link must be taken seriously. Action is needed to prompt new research to inform our understanding of the issue and to ensure that responsibility is taken across the board for the welfare of players at every level.
That action matters. It matters for the former players and their families who have already experienced the life-shattering impacts of dementia, often without any recognition or support. It matters for players in the midst of their career, who must be equipped with accurate information and supported in taking preventative measures. And, of course, it matters for families up and down the country, so that adults and children alike can continue to participate in football and feel certain they are enjoying its benefits, as the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) highlighted in the context of the women’s game.
Research is vital to progress in both the prevention and treatment of football-related dementia. Published in the same year as Alan Shearer’s ground-breaking documentary “Dementia, Football and Me”, the 2017 University College London and Cardiff University study was among the first to identify a connection between professional footballers and dementia. Since then, studies from the University of Glasgow, the Drake Foundation and the University of East Anglia have only solidified our understanding of that link, as my hon. Friend the Member for Easington highlighted. Those studies, alongside the tireless campaigning of former footballers and their families, have been absolutely crucial in prompting change.
From the advice that children under 12 should no longer head footballs in training to the newly established Brain Health Fund, it is to the credit of every researcher and campaigner involved that the first protections and support measures have now been put into place. However, that momentum must continue. Further analysis will be critical to ensure the sport is able to take the correct preventative measures, and to offer meaningful support to those already impacted. I therefore look forward to hearing from the Minister what the Department has been doing to encourage and support research, as well as to work with football governance to ensure that it is ready to take any necessary actions as soon as possible.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
I, too, congratulate the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) and my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) on securing this important debate. I thank all Members for the constructive manner in which it has been held. I would also like to take this opportunity, if I may, to welcome my new opposite number, the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock). I look forward to working with her very closely on the important issues we will be facing. I also put on record my thanks to her predecessor, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), who was extremely constructive and very easy to work with. On that note, there has been much coverage of the fact that the new shadow Secretary of State has not attended a football or rugby match before, so may I take this opportunity to extend my plus-one to the next game I am invited to?
I have enjoyed the cross-party approach to the debate. The hon. Member for Easington talked about the England win in 1966 under a Labour Government. Well, this Conservative Government are very proud of the tremendous successes and efforts of the Lionesses.
Ian Blackford
It is important that we applaud the growth and success of the women’s game, and reflect on how much things have changed. In Scotland, we often think about a woman called Rose Reilly, who was not permitted to play football in Scotland and had to go abroad. She ended up as the captain of the Italian women’s team that won the World cup. Thank goodness people can now play for Scotland or for the Lionesses. We should make sure that we get behind women’s football and support it, including in relation to dementia and other such diseases.
Stuart Andrew
I could not agree more with the right hon. Gentleman. I will come on to women’s football shortly, because some of the contributions have highlighted the fact that we have come such a long way, which is fantastic, although it is extraordinary that we have had to go on this journey.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—I am pleased to say that I will be visiting his constituency next week—clearly has a very wise wife. Not only did she marry him, but she is a Leeds United supporter. He worried me slightly as he built up the expectations for my response to this debate, but I will endeavour to do what I can.
The issue of dementia in football is clearly very important, and it touches the hearts of many people. Indeed, we have heard some extraordinary examples today, bringing testament to extremely emotional stories and accounts such as those of Jeff Astle and Gordon McQueen. I am grateful to Members for raising those important personal stories, because it is important to remember that we are talking about individuals and their families. The fact that the debate has drawn such cross-party support demonstrates the depth of feeling about this vital issue across the House, as well as in wider society.
The safety, wellbeing and welfare of everyone taking part in sport is absolutely paramount. On top of that, I know how important football clubs and players are to our local communities. Recent examples of dementia-related deaths of former footballers are of great concern to Members across the House, and certainly to me as the Minister for sport. The vast majority of people participate in sport safely, but we know that head injuries in sport do occur. Player safety must be a major focus for sport, as we highlighted in our recently published strategy, “Get Active”. Much more work is still needed to ensure that robust measures are in place to reduce risk, and to improve the diagnosis and management of sport-related head injury at all levels of sport. That should apply not just during matches, but during training. There should be provision for both professional and amateur players. That will be a key focus as we start to implement the strategy. I can assure the House that I will continue to make sure it is a high priority for me personally.
As we have heard, sports’ national governing bodies are rightly responsible for the regulation of their sport and for ensuring that appropriate measures are in place to protect participants from serious injuries. We look to individual sports to take responsibility for the safety of their participants. I am pleased to say that positive progress has been made in this area across different sports over recent years.
In football, for example, as others have mentioned, the football associations have changed their guidelines to prevent under 11s heading footballs during training in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. However, it is not just national governing bodies that are contributing to improvements in player safety. Player associations play a valuable role in supporting professional players, providing short and long-term support to those affected by sporting injuries. In all the meetings that I have had with those player associations, I have taken every issue that they have raised with me up with the relevant agencies straightaway, because I recognise its importance.
The Government are also leading work on brain injuries in sport, specifically concussion. As part of that, my Department has worked with interested parties to develop the first ever single set of shared concussion guidelines for grassroots sport across the UK. It was published in April. The guidelines were developed by a panel of UK and international experts in the field of sport-related concussion. They build on the world-leading work that was first conducted in Scotland; I pay tribute to Professor Willie Stewart for the work that he did. We remain grateful to Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish colleagues for their support in expanding the remit of the new guidelines to cover the whole of the UK. I also want to say thank you to Professor James Calder and Laurence Geller for helping us to get to this point.
Grahame Morris
On that point about concussion injury, I assume that that would happen from, say, a clash of heads in a football game, but that does not address the fundamental point of repetitive injury through many hours of heading the ball in football training. Is the Minister in a position to have discussions with his colleagues in the DWP about referral to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, because the evidence is clear?
Stuart Andrew
The hon. Gentleman is pre-empting later parts of my speech, but I think that it is important to highlight the concussion guidance. It is important that we give information to grassroots organisations that often will not have medical advisers on hand. Having that information available for grassroots volunteers is incredibly important and valuable, but that is the start of our work.
As I say, the guidelines are for the use of everyone involved in grassroots sports from school age upwards: participants, coaches, volunteers and parents, as well as those working in education settings and healthcare professions. The guidelines are especially helpful for grassroots players and being able to recognise and respond to concussion symptoms appropriately when no trained medical person is on hand; as we know, that is more likely to be the case than in a professional setting. Through the guidelines, we want to encourage more people to enjoy the benefits of being active and playing sport and we hope that they will prove to be a helpful tool in reducing the risks associated with concussion.
We have also established a research group on concussion in sport. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) and the hon. Member for Easington mentioned international experts, and I am pleased to say that they will be represented so that we draw on the latest and best information. The group is working across the sport and academic sectors to identify the key research questions on sports concussion that need to be addressed. The aim is for the research efforts to become more co-ordinated across sport so that the sector can pool its understanding and expertise. Just a few months ago, I went to see some of the incredible work that Loughborough University is doing in this area and some of the equipment it uses to test what would make sport safer for all.
Alongside that work, DCMS has established an advisory concussion in sport innovation and technology panel to identify tech innovations to help with concussion in sport issues on an ongoing basis. The Department for Health and Social Care is formulating the Government’s new strategy on acquired brain injury, including dementia, and DCMS is feeding into the process to ensure that those who play sport are properly represented. We remain committed to working with the sector to help to make sport safe and enjoyable for everyone, including through technological solutions for the prevention of concussion.
To turn to more specific points, as the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), mentioned, there have been developments within football, too. The Professional Footballers’ Association and Premier League recently established a new care fund to provide financial support to former players who have been affected by dementia and their families. The initial amount of £1 million will be made available immediately to provide discretionary financial support to former players and their families to help to improve the quality of their life. I have discussed the great work of the Professional Footballers’ Association on player welfare with its chief executive.
As it is the first of its kind for English football, I welcome the creation of the fund and hope it will provide help to the former players who need it most. We will continue to liaise with the football authorities in support of funding for cross-game initiatives. The Professional Footballers’ Association also has a dedicated brain health team that provides a range of support to former players and their families, including assistance with claiming state support and benefits.
During the debate, there has been discussion about whether dementia in footballers should be treated as an industrial disease. The Department for Work and Pensions provides specific support to people with industrial injuries through industrial injuries disablement benefit. As many will know, DWP is advised by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, an independent specific body, on changes to the list of occupational diseases for which IIDB can be paid. I know that many Members feel strongly that professional footballers’ access to such benefits should be explored, as was mentioned by many members, including the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens).
The hon. Member for Easington asked whether I could instruct the IIAC. If I had that power, I would love to use it, but I am pleased that the council is considering any connection between professional sportspeople and neurodegenerative diseases such as dementia. The council will publish its findings when its investigation is complete in due course, but given that the question has been raised a number of times, I will of course highlight the debate and the views raised in it to my colleagues in the DWP. It is important to remember that this is a complex area of work, and that going through the raft of published scientific literature that is available is significant work.
Chris Stephens
That is a very helpful response from the Minister and we would certainly welcome that. Could he perhaps facilitate some discussion with the IIAC and hon. Members who might be interested? I think a number of us would be interested to have such a discussion, if he could feed that back. We could then report back to our constituents. I welcome the comments that he has just made.
Stuart Andrew
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the IIAC is an independent body, but I would absolutely be more than happy to write to it or to my colleagues in DWP to say that colleagues in this House would welcome the opportunity to engage with the council.
Grahame Morris
I welcome the Minister’s response; that is real progress and we are very grateful for it. I do not want to pre-empt what he is going to say, but in terms of exerting his influence—particularly over the Premier League, for example, which is awash with huge sums of money to assist in this process—may I say that because I represent a coal mining area, I have had occasion to try to push the IIAC and to get it to make decisions on conditions affecting coal miners, and it notoriously takes an age. If there is anything he can do to expedite that, it would be much appreciated.
Stuart Andrew
Although I am flattered that Members think I have all this power to force people to do things, I am totally aware of my own limitations. I will do what I can and I will certainly highlight the issue. I do understand.
This is a complex area of work. There is a lot of information and research for the advisory council to consider, and it is right that it does so properly, so that it can come up with the right conclusion. Once the advisory council has reported, colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions will carefully consider any recommendations.
It is also important to talk about dementia research, which is important to tackling the issue. I am delighted that the Department of Health and Social Care will double funding for dementia research to £160 million a year by 2024-25, spanning all areas of research, to deliver evidence to help us prevent, diagnose and treat dementia. The Government launched the Dame Barbara Windsor dementia mission in August 2022, and this will focus on accelerating the development of new treatments and boosting the number and speed of clinical trials for dementia. Departments are doing a raft of other things, recognising that this is an incredibly important area and that this disease has a big impact not only on sufferers but on the wider family network and carers.
I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West has taken the opportunity to wear the colours of her beloved football club, and I pay tribute to her for the immense work she is doing to support that club through these difficult times. She is right about the support that many clubs offer. She referenced SUEPA and it is important to acknowledge that.
The hon. Members for Easington and for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) both mentioned women’s football, where there is a lot for us to celebrate—it is amazing to see what has happened. The hon. Lady was told that she could not play football and, sadly, that was still the case after the Lionesses came home victorious from the Euros, with only 63% of girls finding they were able to access football at school. Thanks to their persuasive campaigning and our work with the Department for Education, I am pleased to say that we have made big strides in levelling that playing field. I look forward to seeing women’s football go from strength to strength. We commissioned an independent report; I am grateful to Karen Carney for all her work. We are considering many of her recommendations. Of course, players’ physical and mental health features in the report and it is important that we include it.
There is much good work going on in this area but, of course, there is always more to do. We recognise the strength of feeling on the issue of dementia in football and the effect it has on those who suffer from this terrible illness, as well as on their families. We will continue to work with the sport sector, including the football authorities, to ensure that player safety is prioritised so that everyone can take part in sport as safely as possible.
Ian Blackford
I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have participated in this debate, and I thank the Front Benchers for their contributions, too. My goodness, this has been an example of how the House can come together across parties. After the hon. Members for Easington (Grahame Morris) and for Moray (Douglas Ross) appeared with me before the Backbench Business Committee, within 24 hours, 28 Members had sponsored the debate. This issue and the love of football strike at the heart of so many Members. There is an appreciation for the travails that so many football players have faced after suffering terrible brain injuries over the past few decades.
I applaud the Minister for his considered and constructive response. My goodness, there is an opportunity for the House to demonstrate the scale of our concern to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, representing the interest of all our constituents. I reiterate the comments of my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), that it may be helpful for us to represent those concerns direct to the advisory council, which I hope is watching and has listened to our deliberations this afternoon, recognising that there is a case for it to act at pace because so many people are suffering.
We commend all the actions that have been taken, including the financial support provided by the Football Association in England, but people are suffering today. People have suffered for far too long, so let us make sure that the advisory council completes its work and concludes from the overwhelming evidence that these injuries must be seen as industrial injuries. We, as legislators, can then fulfil our responsibility to look after our constituents who need support.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House asks the Government to investigate the links between football and sport-related neurodegenerative disease.
Support for Bereaved Children
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House calls on the Government to develop a protocol for ensuring that bereaved children are made aware of and have access to practical and emotional support through public and third sector agencies.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee and everyone who supported my application.
I have a jigsaw puzzle at home that my sisters recently had made for me for a big birthday. It is an old photograph of the family at Christmas, when they were just seven and 12—it was the last Christmas before dad died. They did not have to explain to me why they had chosen that picture, as I knew from the moment I unwrapped the present. There is an unspoken bond between the three us, and with our mum when she was alive, and that bond is understood by families all over this country.
I have an interest to declare, of course, as I am both an adult who was bereaved as a child and the mother of a bereaved child. Every day, more children in this country experience what we experienced when our lives were turned upside down. The trauma of losing a loved one—not just a parent but a loved one—is often sudden and inexplicable. Every 20 minutes a parent dies in this country, and around 127 children are bereaved every day, but that figure is only for parents, and I say “only” advisedly. We do not have figures for the number of children who lose grandparents, siblings or friends, all of which are traumatic losses for a young person.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for securing this debate. Supporting bereaved children is incredibly important, and the physical presence of their loved ones is a huge part of that. My Broxtowe constituent Aaron lost his wife Bernadette in childbirth. He did not qualify for leave or pay due to the time he had been employed so, while going through the heartache of losing his wife and raising his son Tim, he had the added stress of the employment situation he faced. No one should be in that position, so does the hon. Lady agree that there must be a day one right to leave and pay for those who lose a partner in childbirth, so that children can be with their loved ones?
Christine Jardine
The circumstances the hon. Gentleman outlines are dreadful and affect so many people in this country every day. We often do not acknowledge the amount of practical and emotional support and help that people need to get through this and, as he says, Aaron should have had support and should have been able to look after his child without having to worry about the financial implications.
I was recently privileged to meet a group of bereaved children who had come to Parliament while handing in a petition at Downing Street asking for exactly what we are talking about today. Listening to them, I could not help but be frustrated that so little has changed in the decades since I went through what they have experienced. Although there are support systems through schools and wonderful charity organisations such as Winston’s Wish, which had arranged the petition, I am told it is still the case that, unless a family is already in touch with social services, those services have no way of knowing about a child’s bereavement or that a child needs support. That means that brave children in this country must often still rely on luck and search engines to find the help they need. It is children of all ages, even those who might consider themselves, as I did, a young adult, who need support through those circumstances, but at the moment we have no official way of keeping track and matching up children with organisations.
These organisations tell me that they know the children are out there and need their help, but they just not know who and where they are, or, sadly, how to get in touch with them. Child Bereavement UK told me:
“As a service that works tirelessly to meet the needs of bereaved children, young people and families, one of the hardest things to hear someone say is, ‘I only wish I’d known you were there when this happened to our family’. Services like ours at Child Bereavement UK are there, but without knowing who and where bereaved children and young people are, they are invisible and the chances of them finding the practical and emotional support they need to navigate life after bereavement are severely diminished.”
That is a crucial point: this is about navigating life after bereavement, and not just immediately after. For children, this can be about more than that immediate period. My sisters and I were lucky, as we had support around us—mum was brilliant—but perhaps there was something more we could have had. Perhaps we could have had more support to make it easier for us and for her—something we did not know about—because it is tough and you just get through the challenges as you can, and not just then. My apologies if this seems ungrateful to anyone, but one reason why I hope the Government are able to take this on, take it across Departments and recognise that it is a cross-departmental issue is that we are dealing with a lifelong challenge. It does not go away miraculously when we hit 30, 40 or 50; I have no idea when it will go away—if it ever does, I would be grateful. More than one person I spoke to cautioned me, when I began to raise this issue, that I might be opening an emotional can of worms for myself. One group I have spoken to, Adults Bereaved as Children, tells me that anyone who loses a parent, grandparent, sibling or friend can be affected in ways that they do not recognise and can be affected later in life when this comes back. I am told that they have an increased risk of depressive symptoms and anxiety. They also have physical health symptoms and can suffer serious illness, have riskier health behaviours and face earlier mortality. Educationally, we can suffer lower than average scores. We are less likely to be employed at the age of 30 and, sadly, we are over-represented in the criminal justice system. Those are only the personal implications. For the NHS, there are ongoing costs involved in dealing with people who have mental or physical health issues as a result of not getting the support they needed when they were a child and this coming back in later life. We must also consider the economic impact of undermining the contributions that so many people could make to our economy by not making sure that they have the support they need at a traumatic time. So the ramifications of this are huge and they are much more than just personal.
In the past few months, I have spoken to people in the voluntary sector, written to the Scottish Government and sat down with the former children’s Minister, the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho). Without exception, they have been supportive. Everyone recognises that there is a problem, wants to help and outlines the wonderful services that are available. However, pinning down the solution is the problem: how do we connect these services with children who are grieving? That is the issue that everyone seems to grapple with, but should it really be difficult?
As I have said when we have talked about this previously, we have debated the merits of a registry for bereaved children. In modern society, it should not be difficult to find people who need support, as we have registers and statistics for just about everything. A digital society makes a lot of things easier; it is often too easy to keep track of things. For example, my medical records are online, as I am sure all of ours are, in order to make it easier for the NHS anywhere in the country to know our history if we collapse somewhere away from home. I hate to think of exactly what information can be scanned from my passport or my national insurance number. But if, God forbid, anything were to happen to any of us who have children, there would be no way of checking whether they were getting the support they needed and whether they were okay—whether they were safe, looked after, coping with the trauma they were going through or whether they were perhaps just needing someone outside their immediate family to talk to. The immediate family is vital and supportive, and schools do a fantastic job in supporting young children, but that may not be the ideal way of ensuring that every child gets the right help. What happens if they move home, to a different school? Who tells the school about this? Do they tell the school or will they be too embarrassed? What happens if they do not want their classmates to know just how bad they are feeling and they need more than the school can provide? Where is the network to ensure that they get that?
That is why today I am calling on the Government to look at how we establish a new and necessary protocol to help a wide range of public bodies—the NHS, local authorities and schools—to establish where and how children who are grieving can find the support that is right for them and perhaps put them in touch with a charity organisation that can give them support. We need to make the children’s carers and the children themselves feel valued and looked after. This should be a low-cost, low-effort task to help the charities connect with grieving families, but to help them in this process would also have undeniable benefits for many people in our communities. It would help them process difficult, traumatic experiences and overcome the problems I talked about earlier. All we need to do, and all I ask the Government to do, is invest some time, thought and care into coming up with what should be an administrative solution—this should not require legislation. This might be something as simple as noting, when a death is registered, whether a child might need support, and identifying which Department can best administer it and the easiest way to do it.
When I met those children who had been brought here by Winston’s Wish to deliver the petition, it was heartbreaking to hear their stories. I have not met anyone in this place who would not sympathise with them and want to address the problems some of them faced in getting support; we recognise the significance of helping them. There is no political issue here; there is no divide over whether or not we should be supporting our children and our adults who perhaps did not get the support they needed when they were younger and perhaps did not even realise they needed it, because the advice was not there for them. We all want to do this, so what is stopping us?
Many bereaved children will not take up the offer of support, but sometimes even knowing that there are organisations out there to offer it provides the safety net that their families desperately need. They may never actually pick up the phone or send an email, but a protocol would mean that they would know that they could and they would know who they could phone if they wanted to. That would be a way of making sure that we know where those children are, that they are getting the help that they need and that they know that we are here for them. We would be making sure that we can reach out and offer that support to every single child—it is the least we can do.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
I would like to start by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate and the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) for sharing her own experiences, as well as for being a voice for so many children who feel forgotten during a difficult time.
I rise to speak because this topic is very close to my heart. When I was at primary school, I lost my father. As for many young people in that situation, it was a confusing time. Life changed overnight and suddenly the relationship that I had shared with him became a distant memory. In an effort to support our mother, who was coming to terms with her loss, my siblings and I stepped up and took responsibility. We essentially became adults overnight.
Our lives at home had changed, but at school there was no acknowledgement of our loss. There was no support or counselling, and we were told to focus on our education and left to our own accord. Life continued as normal, as it does for children. We never took the time to acknowledge our grief and we never spoke about our loss. We essentially went into survival mode, just grateful to have each other and be a family. To be honest, I think we essentially thought we were unaffected.
And then A-levels came. My eldest brother suddenly died and, to be honest, I felt as though the world had been shaken. I will never forget the day my mum called me at school to tell me. For the first time in my life, I experienced an anxiety attack. My brain could not decide how to react. The security, the hope and all the certainty that I knew was gone overnight.
As the weeks went by after the death, I had to adjust to the new responsibilities. I found myself learning about things I had never thought I would have to learn. I had to learn about how to bring a body back from abroad, because he had died in Peru, how to get a death certificate translated and how to organise a funeral. As well as that, I had the added stress of being told that, because my school had put me in for exams, there was no way any adjustments could be made, even though the school tried very hard, and I had to sit those exams. I know how hard my school tried and how much support they offered me during that difficult time.
As the years went by, as I discussed with my siblings, I realised that although we had thought we were unaffected, actually the situation has had a considerable impact on our outlook on life. It meant that we grew up with separation anxiety, difficulties adapting to change and many other things that we did not necessarily acknowledge at the time. I am exceptionally grateful for having an incredibly supportive family and friends, and a church community that was always there.
Sadly, my case is not unique. I hear many stories from my constituents about children who are experiencing a difficult time. Children should not have to ask for support while they are grieving; it should be a given that they are offered our support. Schools should have guidelines to support children. Care, counselling and support should be given to young children. Leaflets and clear signposting should be available so that families know exactly where to go to get support and what charities are available locally. GPs should be equipped with the knowledge to support families and to identify them once they are in that difficult situation.
We all know that grief can be difficult and can have a lasting impact on our lives. That is why it is so important, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh West said, that we collect data, so that we can understand how many children in our country face the situation every year. Then we will be able to identify the gaps in our current services and make adjustments to the current provision.
Lastly, we need to understand the impact of childhood bereavement on those children as they grow older. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh West said, research has shown that those children are more likely to be unemployed by the age of 30, and evidence from studies supports the various impacts that growing up with childhood loss can have on children. It is important that those children are not forgotten and that they are given the necessary support to allow them to achieve their full potential, to support our economy and to know that, because we did not give up on them, they were able to become the best adults they could be.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) for setting the scene, and for doing so from personal experience. I also thank the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) for telling her personal story in this Chamber. I always believe that personal stories carry extra emphasis in illustrating what has been asked for.
As a father, I found preparing for this debate difficult, because the natural reaction is to think about one’s own children and grandchildren. That is the nature of these types of debates. “Support for bereaved children” is the title of the debate and encapsulates what we are talking about well.
I was an adult when I lost my own father in 2015, and also a father myself, yet that pain and loss was immense. I am going to give an illustration of someone who was bereaved as a child—I have asked her permission, so I know I can mention her name. A lady called Yvonne works in my office and looks after all the questions about benefits. She does that five days a week and is very good at her job: she is compassionate, understanding and able to relate to people. When we were preparing for the debate, she reminded us that she lost her mother at age nine. She described the confusion and the loss, and the feeling that she was lost for many years after.
It is clear from her story, and from the others we have heard today, that the support she craved was not available. The hon. Member for Edinburgh West said that clearly. That is why the hon. Members participating in the debate—giving speeches, contributing from the Front Bench and making interventions—are asking for that support, because there was nothing available then and no help to fill the gap through school or even the GP. The hon. Member for Coventry North West and I share a faith, and that faith encourages us in the times when we need it. However, the issue is that something needs to change, because we see children facing pain and loss. Even adults struggle to deal with it, never mind how difficult it must be for children.
The Childhood Bereavement Network estimates that some 26,900 parents pass away each year in the UK, leaving approximately 46,300 dependent children aged between zero and 17. That gives an idea of the magnitude of the issue and why it is so important to debate it in the Chamber today. Although those estimates provide an understanding of the scale of the issue, the absence of concrete data poses significant challenges in providing those children with the appropriate support.
The Belfast Barnardo’s child support bereavement system was set up in 1998. It directs therapeutic support to children, young people and their families. There are other examples of such charities across the United Kingdom, irrespective of geographic location, including Winston’s Wish, which helps children, teenagers and young adults up to the age of 25 to find their feet when their worlds are turned upside down by grief. Those charities do a magnificent job, but they need referrals as there is no automatic process in place for referring children to get the help they need.
I believe there is a role for Government to play in the matter, which is what the hon. Member for Edinburgh West is asking for. I hope the Minister can respond to that request and give us the encouragement we all seek—through personal experience, in the case of the hon. Members for Edinburgh West and for Coventry North-west; and in my case on behalf of my constituents. Those charities do a fantastic job when people’s worlds are turned upside down by grief.
The assumption is that if bereaved children do not need foster care, then their families can take care of them. Unfortunately, that does not always happen, as the hon. Members for Edinburgh West and for Coventry North West expressed. While family are important, it is clear that support may not always be there in the way that is needed. Families are not always able to see the support that a child needs when they are in the midst of their own loss, which was exactly what the hon. Member for Coventry North West said in her contribution. That is why I believe an automatic referral to support must be put in place.
We all understand the current pressure on children’s mental health services, so it is clear that the current system cannot deal with the additional pressure. Such support must therefore come with additional funding. Whether that is granted to charities to provide, directly through NHS services or through the education system, as represented by the Minister who is responding to the debate, the fact is that grieving children need at least to be given the option of speaking with someone without having to request that themselves.
I always bring a Northern Ireland perspective to debates because I like to refer to the things that we are doing. I believe that within this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland we have so much regional experience that we should be able to swap ideas, so that other regions can take advantage of their benefits. Back home, this is something that the education sector is considering; there are more than 300 teachers across Northern Ireland embarking on bereavement training to enable them to better support students who have lost a loved one. It is a fantastic initiative, but it needs to be rolled out further. Hopefully, we will be able to do that in Northern Ireland.
Training will take place at seven venues across Northern Ireland and has been designed by Marie Curie and delivered in partnership with Cruse Bereavement Support, two magnificent charities. Marie Curie is a charity that we all know and love, and Cruse Bereavement Support is known back home for its fantastic work—we love it every bit as much as Marie Curie. In my opinion, the initiative should be rolled out to each school, so that the education support system is in place. School can be a lonely place for someone who is grieving; that person could be surrounded by dozens, if not hundreds, of pupils and still be on their own. My thanks go out not only to all those in Marie Curie and Cruse Bereavement Support, but to the education authority, which has been determined to make this change.
I believe that we in this House must support these children to navigate their grief in as healthy a way as possible. It is so important that help is given at an early stage to enable people to get out the other side. At the minute, too many children are lost in pain and not getting the help they need—they are unable to seek the help they need. Let us have that support widely available to stop these children from having to ask. In these instances, I always think of a biblical text:
“Blessed are those who mourn for they will be comforted.”
Our duty in this House is to ensure that children across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can be comforted. Support must be available. So, here in this House, I am asking the Minister and the Government to step up and deliver the support that is needed. Thank you so much.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I am delighted to participate in this debate and thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine for securing it. She and I do not agree on many things, but I absolutely agreed with what she said in her excellent opening speech.
Like many people who have spoken today, I wish to focus my remarks largely on children who are bereaved by the loss of a parent. And I, like many others here, declare an interest, because I come to this debate having been bereaved twice as a child, as the youngest of eight children: my father died in 1969 when I was 15 months old, and my stepfather died when I was 17 years old. Both events had a huge impact on my family. When my father died, the eldest child in the family was 14 years old. I am perhaps the only member of the family who has no memory of my father. I have never even seen a photograph of him, because of the poverty in which we were raised—photographs were a luxury, far beyond our reach. My father was a labourer and died very suddenly of a heart attack, while waiting for a minibus to pick him up for his shift at Hamilton Cross, which was far from home. I have no memory of that, but the shockwaves that went through my family were significant.
As an immigrant, my mother had no idea of what support—financial or otherwise— could have been available to her, so she struggled on with no more support than her own resilience and family allowance. I well remember my stepfather dying at home in 1985, also of a heart attack. I was there when it happened, and it was truly traumatic. My mother never really recovered from the shock and she died a short five years later.
On both occasions, my family’s reaction took the lead from my mother who, at the best of times, could never be described as a tactile woman. The way to deal with this was to simply plough on and get on with things. Loss was not discussed. Certainly, when my father died in 1969, my mother, left alone with eight children, dealt with it by making sure that everybody was shod and fed as best they could be and looked after with the basics. I have to say, that stiff upper lip approach to loss—I hate to use that phrase—from when I was a child growing up has very much shaped how I have dealt with subsequent bereavements in my own life.
In 1974, when I was a child at school, two children at my school—a brother and sister—were murdered. One of the children in the family survived. The story attracted huge publicity. The papers at the time showed that children were frightened. I remember that, as a school, we went to the funeral service and sang hymns. I was eight years old at the time, and remember being very traumatised by the sight of these two little white coffins. I cannot even begin to imagine how the surviving child felt. When the service finished, we were all marched back to school and immediately the workbooks were given out and we were back to our work with nothing said. Nowadays, that would not happen. The way that loss and bereavement is dealt with for children actually shapes how they then go on to process grief as an adult. I think that that is why I have dealt with grief subsequently in the way that I have. I am not aware that it has done me any harm, but I know that, for many children, it can be very, very destructive. Debating and discussing how children should be supported in managing grief really matters, and that is why this debate is so important.
I have spoken a great deal about bereavement in this House. I introduced the Bereavement (Pay and Leave) Bill, which asked, very modestly, for two weeks’ paid bereavement leave for anybody who loses a close family member. I did so because there is much evidence that the cost of that would be offset by the benefits to society. That Bill mattered, and it still matters even though it did not pass. It matters because we need to look after the bereaved. We need to support bereaved parents who have to look after their grieving children as well as trying to cope with their own grief. We know that how a child copes or does not cope with grief can have a long-term impact on their own mental health, their wider outcomes and their general wellbeing. How Government are able to support those grieving, especially bereaved children, alongside surviving parents really matters. Getting it wrong—I do not know that we are getting it right—has a huge social cost, which outweighs any economic cost. Put simply, we cannot afford to fail bereaved children.
As we have heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the Childhood Bereavement Network estimates that 26,900 parents die each year in the UK, leaving approximately 46,300 dependent children aged up to 17 years of age. By age 10, 62% of Scottish children will have lost a close family member. By the age of 16, up to 7% of children in the UK will have lost a parent. We must remember that, when children lose a parent, there is another parent who somehow has to navigate their own grief and the grief of their child.
A few years back—I think it might have been in 2017—we had a debate when the Government brought in changes to payments for bereaved parents. I criticised that move, but it is done now. The argument is over because the litigation has gone through, and the changes have been made. The reason I was concerned about that change to legislation is that those who are grieving need support, and unless that support is adequate the social fallout is significant, and we all pay the price for that. At the time, I expressed real concern about the consequences of the so-called streamlining of these payments for children, and the potential detrimental consequences for their emotional and mental wellbeing, as well as for their educational outcomes.
We all understand that the bereaved need time to process and somehow come to terms with their grief. How long a person needs to emerge from the fog of bewilderment, shock and disbelief, as well as the pain of the grief that the loss of a loved one brings with it, varies from person to person. We know what that is like, but also how much worse it is for children. Cash payments for bereaved parents are now limited to 18 months. I feel that that means that grief has been given a sell-by date, when it is not like that; if only it were.
When a parent has been bereaved, and left to bring up their children on their own, we know that the surviving parent wants to be around to support, listen and help their children to make some sense of the irreplaceable loss that they have suffered. That is where bereaved parents want, and ought, to be—not stuck in an office or on a shop floor, having to put in extra hours to make up their income shortfall due to the death of their partner, and hoping that friends and neighbours will step in.
My fear is that the recent streamlining cuts to the bereavement payment regime disproportionately affect women. Working-age women are more likely to claim bereavement allowance, with recent figures showing that most people who claim it are women. Nobody wants or expects to claim bereavement support, but its existence is vital for bereaved parents who are left to bring up children with one parent missing, with all the grief and distress that that can bring.
Some people have mentioned this in the debate, but having been an English teacher for 23 years before I was elected I can personally testify to the terrific and extremely sensitive support that young people can receive in schools following the loss of a parent or close family member. That kind of support is essential in helping children to process and come to terms with their loss, but it is not always available and is not always of the same standard. I have alluded to the fact that when I was at school, in the ’70s and ’80s, if somebody lost one of their parents or a close family member, it was never mentioned or discussed. That is not particularly healthy for every child.
In the early days of grief, a child will be in the fog of disbelief and bewilderment, and the surviving parent is not always able to help them to navigate and process that grief, because they are suffering with their own grief and trying to navigate their own bewilderment and loss. That is where outside agencies such as schools, though not just schools, can provide vital support to bereaved children, and why an appropriate level of financial support is necessary and crucial, so that the family unit can work through their grief with less financial pressure interfering with that process.
Everybody in this debate understands that we need to do more to support children who are struggling with bereavement, as well as bereaved parents who lose a spouse, who will also struggle but have to continue to be the responsible parent and meet their child’s needs. They will need support with that. This debate is extremely helpful, as too often grief and its corrosive impact are not discussed as openly as they should be. We need to get better at talking about dying, because death touches every family and we all experience it.
We need to do better at supporting children through the death of a close family member and helping them to make sense of it in a way that is suitable for that child. If we can do that, we will have healthier, happier and well-balanced children who in turn will be better at supporting their own children through such loss. That is where we need to get to as a society. We are not there yet, and we need to get better at supporting bereaved parents, because the bereavement that a child suffers is inherently linked to their other parent, if it is a parent who has been lost.
Ultimately, this is about ensuring that, despite the confusion, trauma and bewildering impact that grief can cause children who lose a close family member, the children affected can and will, with support, recover and go on to live healthier, happier and more fulfilled lives. It is really important that we have this debate and keep on pursuing this subject, because there is a lot of work to do here.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) for securing this incredibly challenging debate. I know she has worked hard to raise this issue, both here in this Chamber and prior to that in Westminster Hall. I pay tribute to her for her work to ensure that this matter gets the time it deserves in this place. She made an incredibly moving opening speech.
I also thank all those who have contributed to this debate, because it is not easy to share personal experiences and insights on this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) made a most powerful speech; I know it will have resonated with many people, and sharing such a personal story will have the impact of making this situation better for somebody else who is facing it. I pay tribute to her for the incredible speech that she made. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who brought his perspective and his insights into this important issue from his many years of experience speaking in this House.
Bereavement is an experience that is difficult for anyone, but for a child the impact truly is profound. We know and we have heard in this debate the experiences of how that impact can stay with a young person for many, many years after their bereavement. The problem is that we do not even know how many children are currently living with bereavement across the UK. Estimated figures from the Childhood Bereavement Network—we have already heard them in this debate, because they are some of the only figures we have—suggest that each year 26,900 parents die, impacting around 46,300 children under 17. That is happening every year.
Without any further data, we have no way of knowing how many more might be impacted by the death of a close relative. The charity Winston’s Wish has provided the figure that one in 29 children are affected by the loss of a parent or sibling. That could be one in every classroom, with schoolteachers and support staff potentially completely unaware of that child’s loss. For that reason, while schools may name bereavement as a key concern that they would like more support to deal with, the support they can give is currently limited by lack of time and lack of skills among an already stretched school staff.
Schools need the tools to help grieving children. However, between the pandemic and disruption to education, crumbling infrastructure, the cost of living crisis and budget restrictions, school staff increasingly find it a challenge to direct their resources to addressing the issues that young people face. It is the Government’s role to break down those barriers to achievement, yet sometimes it feels as if the barriers are just being built higher for some of our young people.
Teachers are not trained mental health staff, but are often expected to fill that role, because they are often the ones who children turn to, if they turn to anyone at all. Yet when teachers look for support with helping that young person, too often it is not there. We should pay tribute to teachers who go above and beyond their role in supporting young people who they know are suffering bereavement.
While of course young people should feel able to share with their teachers the fact that they are struggling with personal loss, children who are suffering from bereavement need professional mental health support. Every child should have access to that, but we just know that that is not currently the case. Many schools do not have trained mental health resources, and accessing child and adolescent mental health services can take years before a child can even get an appointment, never mind be seen. Far too often, children reach crisis point before any help is found.
During that crucial part of a young person’s life, they are missing out on education due to a lack of support and missing out on their development. Older children may be taking on the role of supporting their younger siblings in dealing with that bereavement, putting to one side their own bereavement, and their education as well. Every young person deserves the tools they need to take advantage of the opportunities that school provides, yet for far too many young people those essential mental health services simply are not there.
In 2021 and 2022, patients seeking mental health treatment spent more than 5.4 million hours waiting in A&E—waiting rather than getting the support they need. The Government’s scrapping of the 10-year mental health plan has left 1.6 million stuck on waiting lists for mental health treatment. That is why Labour recognises that the sticking-plaster approach is failing our children badly. We must move to a preventive plan to support our mental health services and support those who need them. That is why Labour is committed to expanding mental health services and staff, ensuring that everyone can receive mental health treatment within a month of their referral. Labour is also committed to putting a specialist mental health professional in every school, and open-access mental health hubs for children and young people in every community. We need those measures in place urgently to address problems early and provide young people with a place to discuss issues such as bereavement before they reach crisis point.
By reforming and expanding mental health services, we can take the pressure off teachers and allow young people to thrive again at school. Mental health hubs will also allow young people to seek support outside the school environment and in their community instead. The Government may have written off a generation of young people, with crumbling schools and public services, but Labour will ensure that every child gets the support they need to take advantage of opportunities both at school and throughout their lives. That is vital because we know that issues that affect us in childhood can affect us throughout life. We have to go beyond expecting teachers to pick up the pieces; we must instead expand mental health support services and give teachers and students the support they need so they can focus on their progress at school.
I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh West again for securing this important debate. I hope that the Minister will provide clarity on how the Government will tackle this issue and when they will recognise the importance of mental health support reform.
The Minister for Schools (Nick Gibb)
May I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) on securing this debate on an important subject, and on her very poignant opening speech, informed as it was by her personal experiences? She made the important point that children need support to navigate life after bereavement, during and beyond the immediate period of their loss. As she said, losing a loved one is a lifelong challenge for a child, or indeed for any person.
The Government are committed to ensuring that bereaved children get the help that they need. We are always looking for ways to improve support and access to it, and to ensure that families are aware of such help. A family bereavement is devastating for anyone, but especially for children. Bereavement turns a child’s life upside down and can have profound and far-reaching consequences that may affect their mental health, their wellbeing and their academic performance, meaning that they require additional support.
I listened carefully to the powerful and moving speech by the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi), who I know is currently attending a Westminster Hall debate on kinship carers. Losing her father as a young child was clearly devastating for her. The lack of empathetic support at school clearly compounded that hurt, but her family, her friends and the Church were her salvation. To lose her brother in her late teens, at the time of her A-level exams, was clearly overwhelming for her. In those circumstances, exam boards will use special consideration to reflect the impact of bereavement on a candidate’s performance in exams.
The hon. Members for Coventry North West and for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) mentioned the financial consequences of losing a parent. Bereavement support payments provide short-term financial support to working-age people with dependent children whose spouse, civil partner or partner is deceased. As the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran pointed out, it consists of an initial lump sum and then up to 18 instalments, with higher amounts paid for those with children.
No one experiences grief in the same way, and children are no different in this respect. Not all children will need access to services when they experience bereavement, due to the support they may receive through their family and wider community, but where support from early help services is required, the Government are committed to ensuring that it is provided.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), in a speech again based on personal experience, helpfully highlighted the role of the voluntary sector. It plays a vital role in supporting schools, children’s social care and other services that can signpost children to support and help them find it. We are always looking for ways to support all children, and the support provided by Government is complemented by the tremendous work of the voluntary sector, some of which has been inspired by personal experience of bereavement. For instance, I am incredibly grateful to the Childhood Bereavement Network and Papyrus for working with us on the review of the relationships, sex and health education statutory guidance. Recently, the Minister for the School System and Student Finance met Andrew Strauss to discuss the important work of the Ruth Strauss Foundation. The foundation does valuable work in preparing children and families for the bereavement of a parent, particularly families with a parent who has a terminal condition.
As the former Minister for Children, Families and Wellbeing, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), set out in the Westminster Hall debate on this subject in March, there are no official statistics on the number of bereaved children in the UK. The Childhood Bereavement Network estimates that 26,900 parents die each year in the UK, leaving approximately 46,000 dependent children under the age of 17. Those figures are based on sources such as the census and mortality statistics, in the absence of any other data, so they are only an estimate, as Members have pointed out. However, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh West said, it is not just the loss of a parent; the loss of any loved one—a sibling or a close friend, for example—can have a deep and lasting impact on a child.
Families provide the love and support that we all know children need, and Government are committed to supporting families, including through the most difficult times. Early help services—a key plank of our reforms announced in “Stable Homes, Built on Love” earlier this year—play an important role in supporting families, and they can be used in some cases to help children through bereavement. Central to the Government’s ambitious plans to reform children’s social care is family help, which will provide effective and meaningful support for families. Multidisciplinary teams will work with local partners to meet the whole needs of a family.
As set out when we published “Stable Homes, Built on Love”, the Government are providing over £45 million of additional funding to pathfind family help and build on the strengths of existing early help services. We recently announced Dorset, Lincolnshire and Wolverhampton as the three local authorities that will be involved in the first wave of the Families First for Children pathfinder.
Our work to reform children’s social care builds on our wider work to support families, including the £695 million Supporting Families programme, which this year sees its 10th anniversary. Through that programme, we have supported over 650,000 vulnerable families through whole-family working to achieve positive and, we hope, sustainable outcomes. The programme has put whole-family working and early help at the heart of the local offer for families.
Key to our strategy for supporting families is the £300 million to establish family hubs and transform Start for Life services in 75 local authorities. Family hubs join up services locally to improve access to services, improve the connections between families, professionals, services and providers, and strengthen the relationships that provide the foundation for happy and productive lives. Family hubs will bring together services for children from conception to adulthood, with a great Start for Life offer at their heart. Family hubs are now opening, with the majority having opened by the summer, and they will be delivering all the programme’s expectations by the end of the funding period in March 2025. We have published guidance for participating local authorities.
As was referred to a number of times during the debate, we know that bereavement can have a significant impact on mental health, requiring specialist support. We are expanding specialist mental health support by spending an additional £2.3 billion a year—we are putting that into mental health services—by March 2024, which will mean 345,000 more children and young people accessing mental health support per year. We are also introducing mental health support teams to support schools and students across the country. Those teams offer support to children experiencing common mental health issues such as anxiety and low mood, and facilitate smoother access to external specialist support. As of April 2023, mental health support teams covered 35% of pupils in schools, and we are extending the coverage of those teams to an estimated 44% by the end of this financial year and at least 50% by the end of March 2025.
Schools and teachers are often a first source of support for children in tough times, as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) mentioned. I am grateful for what they do to provide effective and sensitive pastoral care, although it is important to remember that they cannot be expected to provide specialist support: as she pointed out, they are not mental health, bereavement or trauma specialists. However, teachers know their pupils best, so they are in a position to decide on the pastoral support that they might need. We are offering all schools and colleges a grant to train a senior mental health lead to help schools to put informed support in place, drawing on specialists and working with families where needed. More than 13,800 schools and colleges have now received a senior mental health lead training grant, including more than seven in 10 state-funded secondary schools.
In addition, over 14,000 schools and colleges in England have benefited from the wellbeing for education recovery and wellbeing for education return programmes. Those programmes provide free, expert training support and resources for staff dealing with children and young people who are dealing with additional pressures from covid-19, including a focus on supporting pupils with bereavement. During the covid-19 pandemic, we provided a list of resources for schools to draw on to support children’s mental health, including the Childhood Bereavement Network, Hope Again, and resources from the Anna Freud Centre on supporting children dealing with loss and bereavement.
Health education—taught as part of relationships, sex and health education—became statutory in schools in 2020, and through the mental wellbeing topic, pupils are taught a range of content relevant to dealing with bereavement. That includes recognising and talking about emotions and how to judge whether what they are feeling and how they are behaving is appropriate and proportionate. It is important that children know where and how to seek support, including whom in school they should speak to if they are worried about their own mental health or someone else’s. We also know how important regular attendance at school is for the development and wellbeing of children and young people. Schools should speak with pupils and families to understand what support bereaved children will need in order to be integrated back into school following a bereavement absence so that they can re-engage with their education and social development.
In conclusion, I again thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh West for continuing to draw attention to what is an important subject: the needs of bereaved children. As we have heard, the impact of losing a parent or close family member is profound. The Government remain committed to supporting families in difficult times in a number of ways, including those I have set out today. Grief and loss are deeply personal, and where additional support is needed, I pay tribute to the organisations and individuals who provide that support to bereaved children and their families.
Christine Jardine
I thank the Minister for his comments, and I thank everyone who has stayed late today to take part in the debate. The powerful speeches from the hon. Members for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi), for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) all had one thing in common: they all reflected my own experience, as well as each other’s experiences. I find that we have confidence that support is there and is available, but our fear is that the people who need it do not know, and it is not reaching them.
I thank the Minister for his commitment to making sure that children get that support, that the services are there and that the Government are investing in them. I only ask that the Government continue to listen to survivors such as ourselves when we highlight what is perhaps missing—the co-ordination that is needed—so that we can continue to improve the support for children and young people that I am sure the Minister, and all of us, want to provide. I thank everyone for taking part today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved, That this House calls on the Government to develop a protocol for ensuring that bereaved children are made aware of and have access to practical and emotional support through public and third sector agencies.
UK-Chile Relations and 50th Anniversary of Coup in Chile
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
I am grateful to the parliamentary authorities for allowing this debate to take place. It might be said that the events under discussion took place a long time ago, but I am going to argue that they are relevant to this day. I want to speak principally about the events of 50 years ago and their contemporary significance, but let me begin by referring to the fact that both Chile and the United Kingdom are now part of this slightly bizarre relationship in the Pacific—not that we are anywhere near there—and that in some ways we are partners.
I hope that the Minister will not focus purely on the commercial relationships between our two countries, although those are important—trade is an important factor in bringing people together. But beyond trade, international relationships are also about democracy, progress and human rights, and about resisting torture and arbitrary murder. Those things are important too. When it comes to Britain’s role in the world, if we want to really be a motor for progress, yes, we should promote trade, but we should equally promote democracy and those other things that I have just referred to.
My next point, on which I will touch briefly, is about whether those events 50 years ago are still important today. I want to argue that they are, and for three reasons. The first is perhaps the most personal. I was 23 at the time of the coup, and it marked me profoundly. I do not know exactly why; over the past century, the capacity of human beings to inflict the most awful damage on other human beings—and animals and the planet too, come to that—has been profound. Yet somehow those events in Chile have particularly stayed with me from that day to this. I feel I want to make some points here about them because I believe that there is unfinished business for the British Government.
The second reason is also personal, as I shall shortly refer to. Significant numbers of people came from Chile to escape the violence, murder, torture and bloodshed, as refugees. They came in numbers, which I will give shortly. I met them and helped them. Some of them were legitimately here. Some were in fear of their lives; we helped them, in a kind of underground railroad in Leeds, to avoid the people pursuing them who might well have tortured and killed them. I think the issue is still relevant because, in Chile, the constitution, currently much debated in the country’s political life, is the same as that introduced following the military junta. It is important for that matter to be resolved, although that is for the people of Chile. It is there as a current debate that is interesting to watch.
I am quite clear about the third reason why I think the issue is still contemporary. The experiment in Chile following the junta involved the introduction of what we have now come to call neoliberalism—the attack on so many public services, privatisation, globalisation and the triumph of finance over industry. All those aspects of economic life were first tried in Chile, dripping in blood, and then implemented elsewhere, including in our country. Those three factors play in my mind when I think about Chile.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an important speech. Nobody who heard President Allende’s last speech in Chile as the bombs fell on the palace will ever forget his voice or his words.
As my hon. Friend has explained, Chile was the first place where the Chicago school of economics—Milton Friedman and the rest; “the Chicago boys”—rolled out their neoliberal experiment, which spread across Latin America. Actually, Latin America was the first place in the world not only where neoliberal economics was tried but where elected Governments, in the late ’90s, fought back against neoliberalism with a different view. Would my hon. Friend like to reflect on that? It is poignant to think about it today.
Jon Trickett
My hon. Friend is of course right. Famously, the Chicago boys, as they became known in Chile, were those in the economics department of the University of Chicago who developed a reactionary theory about how economies ought to be managed. It was implemented first in Chile, as my hon. Friend has just remarked, and that was the point I was making. It was rolled out elsewhere, too, and there were conservative and right-wing politicians throughout the world watching what was happening in Chile to see whether, not so much the bloodshed, but the economic experiment could be brought about in their countries too—and of course we have seen it in our country.
I was reflecting on why this is still a contemporary matter and want to refer to some correspondence I received today from the Bell family, refugees from Chile at the time of the coup. The brother of the father of the family was murdered by the military and I understand that the father was imprisoned and tortured. They say in an email:
“As a family, we experienced unspeakable horrors at the hands of Pinochet and the military coup.”
It goes on to talk about communities in the UK who welcomed them, but the family has doubts about the role of the UK Government and I am going to come on to that. The email goes on to say:
“For 50 years we have been fighting for justice, searching for those who were disappeared and campaigning for the perpetrators to be held to account for the human rights violations.”
And we know the facts: the junta killed 3,600 people, tortured 40,000, and some 200,000 were driven away from their home country by what was going on there. The scale of this is hard to come to terms with, yet it happened and there are families who still today do not know where their disappeared ones are.
There is also a programme to build a memory forest for every person who was a victim called Ecomemoria. I recommend that Members have a look at it; there is a memorial there to each person who was killed.
As a young person I was beginning to think about politics. I had been a manual worker; I had left school at 15 with no qualifications and I had come across the ideas of socialism. I looked across the world; the distance between London and Santiago is 7,000 km but somehow it was inspiring to see a country trying to create a new path to this creed that I was beginning to embrace, called socialism. It was particularly inspiring to listen to President Allende, who insisted that:
“The road to socialism lies through democracy, pluralism and freedom.”
I was a young man, as I have said, and our hearts stood still as we hoped he would be able to find a peaceful road to socialism, although all the time we were hearing on the radio and the television that there was a possibility that something would happen there, and that was frightening. But we were also being told by the BBC and others that Chile had a long history of democratic representative government, and that the army and the Chilean state apparatus would not move against a Government; but, of course, they did.
Let me quickly talk about the United States. Allende moved more slowly than he promised he would. I was watching and thinking, “Get on with it, because there’s much more to do try to feed the poor and liberate so many working people in Chile.”
Early doors, Allende took public ownership of the copper industry. It was copper, above all—it was a resource that the Americans, the British and others were using—that turned the tide. Nixon’s crimes are well known, but among them we should add this: he had authorised action—I think he had put $3 million to one side—to try to prevent Allende from winning the election. The money was used in such a way as to try to achieve that. The CIA conducted spoiling operations prior to the Allende victory. Nixon personally authorised the agency to seek to instigate a coup to prevent Allende from taking office. Those were inappropriate—let us say it no more strongly than that—deeply reactionary activities by Washington. Santiago is 1,000 km further away from Washington than London. We cannot say that any kind of military or other threat was posed by Chile to the interests of the United States or Britain.
Moving on to the British Government, Edward Heath recognised Pinochet within 11 days of the coup. Diplomatic cables that have now become available in the National Archives indicate that the British Government were fully aware of the violence being used by the Pinochet regime against innocent people, whose only so-called sin was to hope for a better world. They were working people, socialists, trade unionists and activists of various kinds.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate forward. I spoke to him beforehand, and he knows what I will say. It is important to put on record that in 2022, the US Commission on International Religious Freedom reported an increase in antisemitic social media posts and media publications against Chile’s Jewish community over the past few years. The US special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism has said that antisemitism erodes democratic institutions and values. I know that the hon. Gentleman and I stand together on that issue. Does he agree that it is time that our Minister and our Government conveyed to the Chilean regime that something must change, and that they cannot keep persecuting Jewish people just because they happen to be Jews?
Jon Trickett
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I have spoken in this House about antisemitism, and I have been the victim of antisemitism, because we have Jewish blood in my family. I have even been to Leeds court as the victim of antisemitic behaviour. Nobody feels more strongly about this issue than me, and I am sure the whole House stands in condemnation of antisemitism generally. The hon. Member has made his points. I am not here to speak about that, so I will not follow him further down that track.
I was just speaking about the Heath Government. In the spirit of all-party truth, I need to record the fact that during the first of Harold Wilson’s Labour Governments, it appears to be the case that there was at least one MI6 officer in Santiago collaborating with the Chilean military prior to the coup.
When the coup happened, Heath was the Prime Minister, and Alec Douglas-Home was the Foreign Secretary. It is shocking to see what happened. They were aware of what was going on in Chile. The Foreign Secretary sent official guidance to British embassies across the world, only weeks after the coup, outlining British support—it is impossible to read it any other way—for the military junta. He said:
“For British interests…there is no doubt that Chile under the junta is a better prospect than Allende’s chaotic road to socialism, our investments”—
meaning British investments—
“should do better, our loans may be successfully rescheduled, and export credits later resumed, and the sky-high price of copper (important to us) should fall as Chilean production is restored”.
I am sorry, but it is simply not good enough for judgments on what is happening in a foreign country to be made on the basis of our commercial interests, as I said at the beginning of my speech.
The Heath Government defied calls from all sides to impose an arms embargo on Chile. In fact, they delivered Hawker Hunter jets to Chile before the 1974 general election, when there was a change of Government. It was Hawker Hunter jets that laid siege to the presidential palace during the coup. Over the past few days, it has been possible to listen to a Spanish language broadcast from BBC Latin America and hear the chilling sounds of the jets—British-made jets—attacking the palace, which resulted in the death of Allende. I am sorry, but it is not good enough that those events happened all those years ago, and I do not think we know the full truth about them yet.
As a Labour party member, I am sure that Members would expect me to say that, when Labour came back to office, I was pleased that the Wilson Government cut off all diplomatic relations and then instigated an arms embargo against the junta. However, Mrs Thatcher restored relations when she won the election a few years later in 1979.
The Wilson Government also accepted 3,000 Chilean refugees into our country. As I have said, I met a number of them in Leeds. Many of them are still here and have a personal interest in what happened. Those Chileans, who had fought for a different kind of country and a different kind of world, and who had friends, comrades and colleagues who were tortured and killed in the Santiago stadium and elsewhere, were among the finest people I have ever met. We can be proud that Britain had a tradition of accepting refugees into our country in such circumstances. If that were to happen again, I would like to think that Britain would be prepared to do the same. We took 3,000 Chilean refugees. Sweden took 40,000.
Let me wind up with a couple of points. I got to know those people. I worked with them and helped to feed some of them who were in the underground. We helped to house them—not many of them, just two or three. There were 250 in Leeds. They brought a different culture. We had Chilean music and Latin American music. It was the first time I had heard it. There were even cafés and restaurants opening serving Latin American food. It was a tremendously exciting time, but it was heartbreaking as well.
Before I make my final points, I just want to reflect on one thing. It has been possible to hear another sound on the BBC website this week, and it is even more chilling than that of the Hawker jets—built in Britain—attacking an elected President. It is the sound of the Chilean soldiers going to attack the palace of the elected President and they are singing a marching song. Visit the website if you like, but the sound is awful—it is bloodcurdling—because the marching song is a song developed by the Nazis. When we think about antisemitism, we know that it has resided above all with the Nazis. To think that the soldiers were attacking their own democratically elected President and singing marching songs from the Nazis is really bone-chilling.
Richard Burgon
My hon. Friend has shared examples of chilling sounds from that coup. I would like to take this opportunity to ask him to share his memories of a very inspiring sound from Chile that the junta sought to silence, and that is the sound of the progressive folk singer Victor Jara, who went around Chile arguing for a better society and singing songs about social justice. He was taken to the football stadium, his hands, which usually played the guitar, were broken and then he was killed. Will my hon. Friend share his memories of Victor Jara during this significant anniversary week?
Jon Trickett
I do not want to detain the House for too long, but Victor Jara was a great folk hero. He chose to put his particular skills of singing and playing music at the disposal of the people, fighting for a better world and a better Chile. He was then taken to Santiago stadium, with thousands of others. His hands were immobilised so that he could never play music again, and finally he was killed.
I am reminded of the city of Leeds, and what happened with the Chile solidarity movement back in 1973-75. I hope the House will not mind if I detain us. The Chileans there decided to paint a tribute to Chile, to the movement and to our solidarity. They painted a large mural of Chilean people—peasants, workers and others—in vivid colours. Underneath it says: “And there will be work for all”. That was the simple objective of that Allende Government: to give decent work to all. It is not too difficult a thing to agree with.
Secondly on culture, there was a band that travelled Europe and Britain—I remember seeing them many times—called Inti-Illimani, which sang Chilean music. It was tremendously inspiring. It was great to be young and to fight back against what was an appalling assault on our common humanity in Chile.
I was trying to get to the end of my speech. I do not believe that we know all the truth about the British Government’s involvement, but we should. The email that I read earlier from the Bell family asks that the Government consider making public all the existing material that is not in the national archives, so that we know the true extent of what happened. To build a better future, it is important that we know what happened in our past.
I wonder whether I can tempt the Minister to express some sense of regret. Does he agree with my brief description of Britain’s involvement? I do not mean this in a partisan way, but this democratic Parliament—one of the great creators of democracy—should say that we regret our involvement at the time. I may be tempting it too far, but I feel that an apology is required from the House of Commons to the Chilean people who were killed and those who survived, and the children and grandchildren who are bereft of their dads, mums and grandparents. If the Government will not do it, let me say in my humble, Back-Bench way: I apologise on behalf of the British people—it is impertinent, but I do it—to the Chilean people for what happened in the name of the British Government, but not in the name of all of us.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (David Rutley)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) on securing this debate and on sharing his lived experiences and sincerely held views. I assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Members and my Parliamentary Private Secretary that I do not intend to speak until 5.30, but I will reply to the important points that the hon. Gentleman has made with sincere conviction, and to the other contributions.
As a country, we share a long-standing and warm partnership and friendship with Chile, which continues to go from strength to strength, as demonstrated by this week’s highly successful Chile Day. I would like to take a moment to express my sincere sympathies for those affected by the recent deadly flooding in central and southern Chile, which saw over 30,000 people evacuated from their homes last month. Let me reaffirm this Government’s commitment to address climate risks.
This is a timely debate, following the anniversary of the coup on Monday and the fact that this year marks the 200th anniversary of the UK and Chile establishing formal consular relations. It has been an honour to join the celebrations on Chile Day this week. Let me begin by reflecting on the anniversary of the coup.
Just over 50 years ago, General Pinochet launched a coup against the democratically elected Government of Salvador Allende. Fifty years might feel like a long time ago for some people, but I remember it myself—perhaps not in quite the same way as the hon. Gentleman—and it is not quite as long ago for me as it will be for some people listening to the debate. Following the coup, the military junta was quick to suspend all political activity and suppress dissent. The total number of people who were disappeared or killed between 1973 and 1990 stands at 3,216. That is a slightly different number from that given by the hon. Gentleman, but as we understand it, it is 3,216. That is a large number of people, with the figure for survivors of political imprisonment and/or torture much, more higher. It is tragic to hear about the experiences of the Bell family and others. There can be no justification for an armed coup bringing to an end a democratically elected Government.
At the time, all countries grappled with the challenge of how to respond to the events on the ground. The UK was far from the first country to recognise the Pinochet regime. Indeed, we were the eighth European country to do so, having judged that we needed to be able to talk to the Government to present our views on human rights and protect the interests of over 4,000 British subjects in Chile. Demonstrating our support for the return to democracy, just over a year after it happened, the UK welcomed President Aylwin on a state visit in April 1991 when he met Her late Majesty the Queen and the Prime Minister.
It is important to recognise—I think the hon. Gentleman recognises it, too—that there is a live debate today in Chile over the context in which the coup happened. That debate is happening democratically and peacefully, and it is right that the Chileans are leading it. It is also the case that the hon. Gentleman has a democratic right to put his views on the record today as well. It reminds us of the importance, still today, of protecting democracy, freedom of speech and human rights. They have been hard won and hard fought for in this country and across Latin America over recent decades, and they absolutely need to be protected. Across the House, we would all agree with that.
Following the commemorative events this week in Chile, it was heartening to see representatives of all political parties come together to agree a commemorative statement made by the Senate President on Tuesday. The Foreign Secretary saw during his visit in May, which was part of an extended visit across Latin America, including Brazil, Colombia and the Caribbean, how Chile has restored and strengthened democracy since 1990, and how the country continues to work through the consequences of the dictatorship. In particular, his visit to the Museum of Memory and Human Rights, which commemorates the victims of human rights violations during the military dictatorship, highlighted the importance of memorialising the 50th anniversary of the coup, as the hon. Gentleman indicated. The Foreign Secretary met the museum’s director, Marcia Scantlebury, a victim of torture by the military dictatorship, and jointly toured the museum—this is significant—with Chile’s Foreign Minister, Alberto van Klaveren. In their meeting, the Foreign Secretary and Minister van Klaveren reaffirmed our countries’ shared values and commitments to protecting and promoting democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
Today, the UK and Chile are two like-minded, liberal democracies committed to working together to solve global challenges. I particularly welcome Chile’s membership of the UN Human Rights Council. It is a key priority for both Governments to protect and strengthen democracy and human rights in the face of increasing challenges. Democracy and human rights are not abstract concepts in Chile or the UK. They are values that must be fought for and protected. It is important, now more than ever, to reaffirm our shared values and commitment to protecting and promoting democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
Looking further back, this year also marks 200 years of our consular relations with Chile, which began with Christopher Nugent, the first British consul general in Chile, who was appointed to Valparaiso in 1823—I cannot remember that far back, Mr Deputy Speaker, before you cheekily intervene. It is a reminder of the strength and longevity of our partnership, which continues to thrive today. The UK supported the establishment of Chile’s navy. Admiral Lord Cochrane’s heroic efforts to support Chilean independence are still celebrated—he was certainly quite a character by all accounts. Indeed, our defence co-operation continues to this day through joint training and exercising among our armed services and through the defence dialogue between our two countries, addressing shared defence priorities on a range of issues.
Sadly, I missed the all-party group’s reception to celebrate the 200th anniversary this morning because I needed to respond to the urgent question on Libya, but I would like to thank the Chilean embassy in London and the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron)—sometimes I wish the Scottish constituency names were shorter—for organising the event to celebrate this important anniversary.
I would also like to welcome the Chile Day celebrations taking place in London this week for the 12th year. These events have now flourished to such an extent that I suggest that we change the name. Although it is not my call, I think “Chile week” would be a much more appropriate description. It is a perfect example of our close relationship, with over 300 top Chilean investors and businesses visiting London, led by Finance Minister Mario Marcel, to improve economic and trade co-operation between our two countries.
I know that it is not all about commerce, but commerce is important to bind our countries together. Chile was the first country to sign a continuity agreement with the UK after we left the EU. We have worked together with Chile to further strengthen our relationship through our annual trade dialogue and modernisation road map. The fourth trade dialogue took place yesterday, with Trade Ministers in discussions. It was led by my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Economic Security on our side and by Claudia Sanhueza.
Chile acceded to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership in February, and we are grateful for its support for the UK’s accession in July. As a result, the bloc now accounts for 15% of global trade. The partnership brings new opportunities for both countries, including for growth. The agreement will eliminate tariffs on over 800 products, including exports of Chilean fruits, fruit juice and olive oil to the UK. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) for his sterling work as trade envoy.
Overall, the figures show that trade between the two countries is thriving. Bilateral trade between our countries amounted to £1.7 billion in the year to March 2023, an increase of £100 million on the preceding year. Clearly, there are more opportunities going forward.
As the hon. Member for Hemsworth set out, this is not just about trade. Of course, we need to ensure that growth is green and sustainable. Chile is a clear climate leader in Latin America. Inspired in part by UK legislation, Chile has legally committed to a net zero target by 2050 and has ambitions to be a leading global producer of green hydrogen. I learned more about that during the Chile Day celebrations this week. There are clear opportunities to benefit both our countries and the planet if we move these initiatives forward. Our COP26 presidency came after Chile’s, creating a close relationship on climate action that continues to this day. Chile signed up to more commitments at COP26 than any other Latin American country. We have supported Chile to sell green and sustainable bonds worth more than £21 billion on London’s sustainable bond market.
Turning to foreign policy, we stand together against Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. President Boric is a leading Latin American voice against it. We must continue to work together with other allies in the region to condemn Russia’s aggression in Ukraine.
The ties between our countries are equally strong when it comes to cultural links. The UK is a destination of choice for Chileans undertaking postgraduate study. They are supported by UK scholarships such as Chevening and welcomed by leading universities such as the London School of Economics—where I was privileged to study—University College London, Sussex and many others. We want to expand the Chevening programme to enable more Chilean students to pursue postgraduate studies in the UK, especially when it comes to fields concerning lithium and green hydrogen. Plans are in train to launch a scholarship next year to boost the study of lithium battery technology.
British music is big in Chile. I hear that Chilean music was big in Leeds, at least for a period, and I am sure that it will continue with the support of the hon. Member for Hemsworth. Over the past 12 months, global British artists such as Harry Styles, Coldplay, and Dua Lipa have performed in Santiago to huge crowds. Some other bands that I am a bit more familiar with, such as Blur and Pulp, are at the vanguard of British music in Chile.
British immigrants introduced a number of sports to Chile, including football, tennis and rugby. We are all proud to see that Chile have qualified for the rugby world cup, for the first time in their history. We congratulate them and look forward to an entertaining match on Saturday.
I am confident that the links between our two countries will only continue to grow over the coming years and decades. Chile has an important role to play in making the international order fit for the 21st century, and the UK will work closely with our friends and partners there to do just that. We will continue to stand together to promote and protect democracy and human rights. We will work to boost our trade relationships further, creating jobs and furthering innovation in both our countries. On climate, we will continue our close relationship as we strive to deliver net zero, and on the global stage we will continue to stand together to speak out in condemning Russia’s aggression and supporting the people of Ukraine.
Although we might be rivals on the rugby pitch next week, our links across sport, music and education continue to promote friendship, understanding and connections between our people. Long may that continue.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I was privileged to visit Chile a few years ago with an Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation. I went to Santiago and a few other places, and we were royally looked after by the Chilean Parliament. It is a superb country. I was there at the same time as the Archbishop of Canterbury, so the links between the United Kingdom and Chile are incredibly strong. I wish all well for Chile week, as it has now been rebranded by the Minister.
Question put and agreed to.
Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill (Sixth sitting)
Thursday 14th September 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill 2022-23 View all Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 September 2023 - (14 Sep 2023)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 7, page 5, line 8, leave out
“, or is about to make”.
This amendment, together with Amendments 26, 27, 28 and 29, would remove the ability of information notices and compliance notices to be given to public bodies prior to an actual contravention of the ban.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 26, in clause 7, page 5, line 12, leave out
“, or is likely to contravene”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 25.
Amendment 27, in clause 7, page 5, line 15, leave out
“, or is about to publish,”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 25.
Amendment 28, in clause 7, page 5, line 18, leave out
“, or is likely to contravene,”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 25.
Amendment 29, in clause 8, page 6, line 6, leave out
“, or is likely to contravene”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 25.
Chris Stephens
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Caroline.
In considering this clause, we will continue some of the debates we had on clause 4 on Tuesday. We have heard many similar views from a range of parties that the Bill is an unethical attempt to stifle freedom of expression and legitimate concerns of councils and other publicly funded bodies. They will face significant fines for being about to, or likely to, associate with international norms of behaviour. And who will be empowered to conduct investigations into those suspected breaches? Why, it will be UK Government Ministers themselves who are granted that authority! There go freedom of expression and the rule of law. I ask Members to support the SNP amendments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Felicity Buchan)
Amendments 25 to 29 would remove enforcement authorities’ power to give information notices and compliance notices in anticipation of a contravention of the ban.
First and foremost, the powers given to enforcement authorities to be used before such a breach will prevent the sort of deeply divisive activity that we have heard about from representatives of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council in oral evidence. It is obviously much better to prevent a breach of the ban in the first place than to wait for a divisive boycott or divestment policy to be put in place before taking action.
I reassure hon. Members that that does not mean that there will be active monitoring of public authorities. Potential breaches will be investigated as and when they are brought to the attention of enforcement authorities by third parties. When flagged to enforcement authorities, it is only where relevant to a potential breach of clause 1 or 4 that an information notice may be issued to require information from a relevant public body.
Finally, the enforcement regime does not provide unprecedented powers for enforcement authorities. It is based on existing regimes. The powers are based on those that the Office for Students already has for regulating universities, and the powers to enforce the ban for local government pension schemes are similar to those that the Pensions Regulator already has. I therefore ask that the amendments be withdrawn.
Chris Stephens
We wish to test the will of the Committee on the matter. I ask Members to support our amendments.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 7, page 5, line 32, leave out subsection (8).
This amendment removes provisions stipulating that providing information in compliance with an information notice does not breach obligations of confidence or other restrictions on disclosure.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Caroline.
Clause 7 sets out the significant powers to compel information that will be made available to the enforcement authorities detailed in clause 6. As we have heard, the enforcement authority will most often be the Secretary of State. The provisions in clause 7 provide enforcement authorities with the power to prepare and issue an information notice to request from a relevant public body information relating to a decision in respect of the Bill. The enforcement authority—usually the Secretary of State, as I say—can request any information likely to be useful for it to assess whether the provisions of the Bill have been contravened or are likely to be contravened.
Provision is also made in respect of clause 4, the gagging clause. Clause 7 means that the enforcement authority can request information if it is satisfied that a public body subject to the Bill is about to publish, may publish or has already published a statement prohibited by the Bill. The most egregious provision is subsection (8), which provides:
“A person providing information in compliance with an information notice does not breach—
(a) any obligation of confidence owed by the person in respect of the information, or
(b) any other restriction on the disclosure of information (however imposed).”
“However imposed” is a challenging phrase. It seems to grant the Secretary of State or other relevant bodies the power to issue notices that would not only require all information to be handed over, but override normally protected duties of confidentiality, safeguarding or legal privilege. That is very significant. We would argue that those powers of investigation go beyond the powers of the security services to compel information. There is no clarity or sense of what checks and balances there are. Even the security services, which do not have that degree of power, have oversight mechanisms such as the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. Frankly, this seems to be a very strong power to reserve to the Security of State or, indeed, the Office for Students.
We have heard evidence from multiple witnesses who are concerned about these provisions. We did hear from others who are less concerned, but even if colleagues consider the case I have set out to be wrong or overstated, the ambiguity is obvious. At the very least, the Bill is not clear enough. It is important to say that the Government do not—if I have understood properly what the Minister told the Committee last week—want the provisions to supersede legal privilege. That is welcome, and I am keen to have similar commitments regarding safeguarding duties. If that is the case, amendment 10 promotes that.
I believe that the Government ought to accept our amendment, or at least propose an alternative in lieu. What is in the Bill seems overbearing; if not overbearing, it is definitely unclear. That, at least, must be resolved.
Felicity Buchan
Amendment 10 would remove clause 7(8), which stipulates that providing information in compliance with an information notice does not breach obligations of confidence or other restrictions on disclosure.
The intention behind clause 7 is to provide a power for enforcement authorities to issue information notices to require information from a relevant public body relating to a decision in respect of the Bill. As drafted, the clause sets out a necessary and proportionate power for enforcement authorities properly to investigate potential breaches of the ban.
I must be clear that the clause does not place an undue burden on public bodies in scope of the ban. Information may be requested only if the enforcement authority is satisfied that a person has made or will make a decision or statement in breach of the Bill and that the information is likely to be useful for the enforcement authority’s investigation. Subsection (8) provides standard wording in order to give assurance to the person complying with the information notice that they will not be breaching an obligation of confidence or any other restriction on disclosure. The Bill is by no means unique in including such drafting; the same caveat is provided for in the Agriculture Act 2020, the Building Safety Act 2022 and the Health and Care Act 2022, for example.
The hon. Member for Nottingham North has said that he is concerned that the subsection would override the privilege between lawyer and client. I can reassure him that it does not. Legal professional privilege is a fundamental common-law right, including for those public bodies captured by the Bill, and specific words would not be needed to override it. The information power therefore does not extend to legally privileged material; I can confirm that I will clarify that point explicitly in the Bill’s explanatory notes. I would also add that Richard Hermer KC has subsequently clarified, in written evidence to the Committee on this point, his view that it is likely that a court would not deem legal professional privilege to be overridden by the clause.
Subsection (8) does not provide a right to extract the information, nor does it give a power to the Government; it simply provides the person who is disclosing information necessary to investigate a potential breach with protection against a claim for breach of confidence or any other restriction. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
It is really important that legislation passed by the House be clear and unambiguous. As we have heard repeatedly in this Committee from a wide variety of sources, including witnesses who gave oral evidence and those who submitted written evidence, the Bill fails that test.
This subsection is another example of that. The open-ended reference to
“any other restriction on the disclosure of information”
makes no distinction, for example, between somebody expressing a view in a private and in a professional capacity. That cannot be right. Subsection (8) should be deleted.
Alex Norris
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen for her very effective contribution, with which I agree.
I hear what the Minister says about the intention behind the clause and about whether it is necessary and proportionate. I can probably agree with “necessary”, but there is still a divergence of views between us on “proportionate”. I also hear what the Minister says about commonality with other pieces of legislation. I am willing to accept that clause 7(8) is not a unique provision, but I do not think that that means that it is therefore the right provision. It could be badly drafted here and elsewhere too; that would not be without precedent.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 33, in clause 7, page 5, line 39, leave out from “legislation” to end of line 41.
This amendment is to probe the way the legislation appears to “qualify” the data protection legislation.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline.
Like previous clauses that we have discussed, clause 7 is poorly drafted. It hands enforcement authorities powers that risk infringing on civil liberties such as the right to a private life. The clause allows an enforcement authority to compel a person suspected of contravening a ban to provide information, including personal information about people involved with a decision. It is clear that the intention is to prevent a public body from contravening clause 4, the so-called gagging clause. However, the broadness of the clause risks casting too wide a net and infringing on personal data. My amendment 33 seeks clarity from the Government as to how the clause will interact with existing data protection legislation.
Data law exists to protect people’s privacy and data, but the Bill is confusingly drafted. In its current form, the clause could be interpreted as implying that existing data protection legislation is to be read in line with the Bill, rather than the other way around. That obviously raises issues about an individual’s right to data privacy. The circularity of the drafting could potentially mean information disclosure obligations superseding data protection legislation. As has been raised numerous times under other clauses, the drafting clearly suggests that little thought has gone into the powers granted to enforcement authorities. It is unclear whether any assessment has taken place of the legal necessity of the powers or of whether they are proportionate under the General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018.
The drafting of clause 7(8) is particularly concerning. It provides that disclosure of information under the provisions will not breach
“any obligation of confidence owed by the person in respect of the information, or…any other restriction on the disclosure of information (however imposed).”
That is such a broad definition that it potentially includes everything from contractual restrictions and court orders to legal professional privilege and even statutory restrictions on information disclosures.
Many people have raised these concerns, as we know from our evidence sessions last week and from written submissions. I am sure that granting such expansive powers was not the Government’s intention in drafting the clause. I hope that the Minister will provide an explanation of why they have drafted the legislation so confusingly in respect of data protection and why they are granting such expansive powers to enforcement authorities.
The clause has the potential to allow a severe intrusion on an individual’s right to privacy under article 8 of the European convention on human rights, which provides the right to a private life. The grounds on which information can be requested are very wide: someone would need merely to be suspected of being in the process of potentially making a prohibited decision or statement to be required to hand over information. That is compounded by the requirement to provide any information that is
“likely to be useful to the enforcement authority”.
It would be beneficial if the Government explained what kind of information could be requested through an information notice.
Amendment 33 is a probing amendment, so I will not push it to a vote, but I hope that the Government will provide further detail on what evidence individuals will have to provide when issued with an information notice, as well as looking again at the broad powers granted under the clause.
Felicity Buchan
Amendment 33 would remove the part of clause 7 that refers to compliance with data protection legislation, specifically the requirement that the provisions of the clause should be taken into account when determining whether the provision of information would contravene data protection legislation. Importantly, an information notice does not require the provision of information if this would be in contravention of the data protection legislation.
The clause provides a lawful basis for sharing information. This is a standard drafting mechanism that respects the principles of data protection; it does not alter the principles of data protection. As I have already set out, the Bill is by no means unique in including this drafting, which features in various pieces of existing legislation, such as the Building Safety Act 2022 and the Agriculture Act 2020. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts to withdraw the amendment.
Ms Qaisar
I thank the Minister for her response, but I do not think it goes far enough in addressing the concerns that I and other Members have raised. I heard what she said, and I understand from her previous contributions that some additions will be made to the explanatory notes. I am slightly concerned that, when they made concessions on clause 7 and others, the Government said that there will simply be additions to the explanatory notes, rather than anything on the face of the Bill. I hope the Minister will go back and seriously consider how to tighten up the language in the clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Monetary penalties: power
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 11, in clause 10, page 7, line 20, at end insert
“within 60 days of the passage of this Act.”
This amendment specifies that regulations prescribing a maximum monetary penalty must be made within 60 days of the Bill being passed
Amendment 12, in clause 10, page 7, line 21, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment, together with Amendment 13, would require the publication of regulations in matters to which the enforcement authority must, or must not, have regard in exercising its powers within 60 days of the passage of the Act.
Amendment 13, in clause 10, page 7, line 23, at end insert
“within 60 days of the passage of this Act.”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 12.
Clause 10 stand part.
Alex Norris
I rise to speak to amendments 11 to 13, which relate to clauses 9 and 10. Clause 10(1) states that:
“The Secretary of State must, by regulations, prescribe a maximum penalty for the purposes of section 9”.
Clause 9 states that an enforcement authority may impose a monetary penalty on someone if they do not comply with the provisions of the Bill. Similarly, clause 10(2) states that:
“The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision about matters to which the enforcement authority must, or must not, have regard in exercising its powers under section 9”,
which refers to the power to impose monetary penalties.
The regulations set by the Secretary of State will be highly consequential, because they will show how the sharper elements of the Bill, which we have already discussed, will interact with the rights and freedoms of individuals. They will outline the monetary penalty, but also what the enforcement authority—most often, the Secretary of State—will weigh in making a decision. As drafted the Bill does not specify when the Secretary of State must make these regulations and when they will take effect. That leaves a degree of ambiguity, and a gap where people will be waiting to see when the provisions start to bite.
The Minister previously talked about measures being necessary and proportionate. It is necessary to have an enforcement regime, and proportionate for the shoe to drop at some point; otherwise there is no point in having the legislation. Also, having made a significant number of points around Henry VIII provisions, and, at length, been quite displeased by some of them, even someone with my hard heart would say that it is proportionate for those to be set by regulations, because they will change over time.
The quid pro quo for that is what I have set out in amendments 11, 12 and 13, which remove some of the ambiguity and has the Government say when they intend to set the regulations. These probing amendments—I will not press them to a Division—set out what ought to happen within 60 days of Royal Assent, which would give a degree of clarity for those who are getting their decisions in order and understanding when the provisions are likely to fall. I think that is proportionate. If 60 days is too short or long a period, I hope the Minister will say when the Government intend to do this. I suspect they want to get on with it, but people ought to have that clarity.
Felicity Buchan
Amendment 11 would require the Secretary of State, via regulations, to set a maximum fine that can be imposed on public authorities in breach of the ban within 60 days of the Bill being passed. The suggestion by the hon. Member for Nottingham North to set a deadline of 60 days for the Secretary of State, while well intentioned, is inappropriate.
It is crucial that the threshold for fines is carefully decided in consultation with enforcement authorities, including the Office for Students and The Pensions Regulator. Since that will also be done by the affirmative procedure, the measure will need to go through both Houses. It will need to go through the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in the House of Lords, and it would need to be debated in both Houses. Clearly, it is a piece of legislation that the Government want to be implemented, so I give the Committee my word that we will do this as expeditiously as possible. It is wrong, however, to commit to 60 days.
The same arguments apply to amendments 12 and 13. We agree that expediency in setting out details of the enforcement regime is important, but we need to take into account proper consultation with the regulators and enforcement authorities, as well as due scrutiny in both Houses. For that reason, I ask the hon. Member for Nottingham North to withdraw the amendments—I know that he said they were probing amendments.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that answer from the Minister. I am happy to withdraw the amendment on that basis. The point about consultation is important, so I hope that is a full consultation, both with potential enforcement authorities and those who speak for those that are going to fall under the provisions, such as the Local Government Association.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 10 and 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Application of prohibitions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Norris
Clause 12 adds back the local government pension scheme. We heard in evidence just how seriously the local government pension scheme takes its fiduciary duties. This is overreach. The case for the inclusion of the local government pension scheme is weak. Again, I think this will play out later down the line in further discussions in the other place. Its inclusion, which is significant and will add an extra burden and anxiety for people working hard to deliver important benefits for their members, is not really necessary, so I hope the Minister will reflect on that.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 13 to 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17
General provision
12 noon
The Chair
Amendments 16 and 17 to clause 17 were debated in an earlier group. I have not selected those amendments for separate decision, because they are incompatible with an earlier decision, namely that clause 2 stand part of the Bill.
Amendment proposed: 1, in clause 17, page 10, line 39, at end insert—
“(1A) Section 1 does not apply to decisions made by—
(a) Scottish Ministers, unless a motion has been passed by the Scottish Parliament indicating its consent to this Act;
(b) Welsh Ministers, unless a motion has been passed by Senedd Cymru indicating its consent to this Act;
(c) a Northern Ireland department, unless a motion has been passed by the Northern Ireland Assembly indicating its consent to this Act.”—(Wayne David.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Chris Stephens
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
One definition of a human being is that they learn from their mistakes. To do so, they must review their actions against a set of criteria, often through an impact assessment, so as to identify any error, misjudgment or unintended consequence that they may have created. That sometimes leads to a revision or reversal of prior actions. I am sure that we all agree with that statement, given that we are all human beings, are we not? The principle applies to presumptions as well as actions. I am sure the Government hope this legislation will impact only on the countries and territories explicitly named in the Bill, but that may be presumptuous. New clause 1 provides a list of countries whose behaviour might change as a consequence of the Bill being enacted. It might change them for the better, but we ought to be aware that some will see it as a green light to expand their breaches of human rights, confident in the knowledge that the UK has turned a blind eye to their behaviour, all in the interest of expanding trade. We believe that the impact assessment and the timescales proposed are realistic and essential to the reputation of the UK. I ask the Committee to send a clear message to those countries by supporting the new clause.
Felicity Buchan
I urge hon. Members to reject the new clause. It would give the Secretary of State or Minister for the Cabinet Office a new duty to conduct an assessment, six months after passage of the Act, of its impact on the UK’s trade and diplomatic relations with the countries identified by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office as human rights priority countries.
The UK Government’s trade positions and diplomatic efforts will not be affected by the Bill. Its intent is to ensure that the UK speaks with one voice internationally; it is not to hamper diplomatic relations by publishing arbitrary impact assessments for the countries listed in the new clause. The Bill makes clear where the power to conduct foreign policy is, and allows other public bodies to focus on their core duties. It does not change any aspect of the UK’s foreign policy.
That is not to say that the Government will not carry out impact assessments on international matters when needed. Indeed, we are already committed to producing independently scrutinised impact assessments, such as those for new free trade agreements. Moreover, as with any Act that the House passes, once the Bill is an Act it can be subjected to post-legislative scrutiny by a parliamentary Select Committee to assess how it has worked in practice since coming into force. The additional impact assessment proposed by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West is unnecessary. For those reasons, I ask him to withdraw the new clause.
Chris Stephens
I have listened carefully to the Minister. If I understood her correctly, she said that the Bill does not change Foreign Office policy. Many Opposition Members believe that some provisions in the Bill actually do change Foreign Office policy, and we explored that in an earlier exchange. Many of us believe that we are using a domestic Bill to change Foreign Office policy, and if we are doing that, I insist that the Committee divide on the new clause.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Will the hon. Member explain the basis on which he selected his large number of countries and excluded others?
Chris Stephens
As a member of this Committee, the hon. Gentleman could have tabled an amendment to the new clause or even his own amendment. Those countries were selected because of concerns with the human rights abuses that are taking place. Perhaps that will satisfy the hon. Gentleman enough for him to support the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Felicity Buchan
May I take this opportunity to thank the entire Committee? We have worked effectively and expeditiously. I also thank the two Chairs and the Clerks.
Alex Norris
Similarly, I want to put on record our thanks to you, Dame Caroline, and Sir George, to the top-class Clerks for all their help, to the civil servants for their work and to my colleagues. I draw special attention to my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), who was shadow Secretary of State on Second Reading, for her efforts and support while we have been getting our work together, and to the Minister for her collegiate work, both inside and outside this room. I also thank her colleagues.
Chris Stephens
May I first thank you, Dame Caroline, and Sir George for chairing these sittings? I also commend all Members. There has been much debate around the Bill, and many of us have regarded it as essential that we debate it in a tone that is appropriate but also robust. I think we have done that in this Committee. I would like to thank all hon. Members for the tone they have adopted and also for their good humour. That has been essential for the Bill, which has been fairly controversial.
We will obviously reflect on the changes we want to see in the stages to come. I do think there is going to be a challenge on the Government’s side, because a number of their Members are very critical of the Bill. The fact that no amendments have been agreed will be a test for them. I again thank you, Dame Caroline, and Sir George, as well as the Clerks, for all the help we have had.
Lastly, it was unfortunate that there was no evidence from a Palestine support group in our evidence sessions. I do not believe there was a conspiracy on that. I think it was perhaps more cock-up than conspiracy, but I hope it is something we will all learn from. We should have all views heard, and we might all want to take that point away and reflect on it.
Bob Blackman
On that point, the Committee received correspondence today from the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. Conservative Members’ inboxes have certainly been filled with over 2,500 emails from people who are sending a template email that is factually inaccurate. It would be helpful to know from the Clerks or you, Dame Caroline, whether there will be a response to the correspondence we have had or whether we as individuals will have to respond and point out the facts. Personally, I have three or four emails from constituents, but the emails have come in from literally all over the country to everyone else. Frankly, it is a complete waste of their time and effort.
The point the Palestine Solidarity Campaign has made is reasonable given the information that has been supplied to it, but we need to correct the record on how the witnesses were chosen and on the offer that was made in terms of correspondence and evidence so that we could carefully consider all sides. As the hon. Member for Glasgow South West has referred to, we have to go through Report, Third Reading and the other place. It would be grossly unfair, given all the work the Committee has done, were it suggested that we were one-sided and did not hear the other side of the argument.
The Chair
Unfortunately, there is no formal route for the Committee as a whole to make a statement, but Members had the opportunity to discuss the issue last Thursday, and in making his comments now, the hon. Gentleman has put his very well-reasoned thoughts on the record. I would suggest that Members do have to respond individually to correspondence they get, but the hon. Gentleman can now refer to his comments, which are on the record and there for everyone to see.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
I rise briefly to support my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East. We should make it clear to members of the public who are listening or reading Hansard afterwards that individual Members of Parliament have had no influence on who comes to give evidence and who does not. The aggressive nature of what we and our staff have experienced this week really is not acceptable. We are here trying to do the best job we can, and we have had no influence on who does and does not come here to give evidence. I just wanted to put that on the record.
The Chair
The Committee did agree a resolution about who would come in to give evidence; that agreement was debatable and amendable. But the hon. Lady’s point is well made and is now on the record.
Chris Stephens
I would not usually try to intervene again, Dame Caroline, especially when I am trying to get to another debate, but I thank Government Members for raising this issue. I have had 2,700 emails, so I think that everyone on the Committee has got the emails. I suggest that this matter is raised through the usual channels. I think there was a cock-up rather than a conspiracy; the email address of one of the organisations was certainly on our suggested list. I think it would help all of us if there was a template response agreed via the usual channels. I put that forward as a suggestion to take to the usual channels to see whether we can come up with something that would be a template for us all.
The Chair
The Whips on both sides will have heard that, and I suggest they take it away and come up with a solution that is acceptable to everybody.
Lia Nici
May I clarify for the record that, as a general rule, Members of Parliament do not make contact with people who are not their own constituents? I will not ask my hard-pressed team in the constituency to respond to people who are not constituents. That is parliamentary protocol. No constituents have got in touch with me about this matter, and I will not be requesting that my team respond to non-constituents, because we need to work with people who really need our help.
Felicity Buchan
I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby. It may be useful if I spend one minute explaining how the witness list comes about. Each party suggests witnesses, and then a Programming Sub-Committee agrees the list of witnesses. I just wanted to clarify that point.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly to be reported, without amendment.
Westminster Hall
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Backbench Business
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
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
Support for Kinship Carers
(1 year, 3 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
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of support for kinship carers.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I start by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate and by welcoming the many kinship carers who are here listening. The last two times that I led a debate on kinship care, the Children’s Minister resigned shortly after—literally within days—but in an exciting plot twist, this time the Children’s Minister got a promotion the week before, so perhaps things are looking up for the new Minister. I welcome him to his place.
On a serious note, I launched this campaign in Parliament in July last year and the hon. Member for Wantage (David Johnston) is the fourth Children’s Minister I have engaged with on this issue since then. I know that his brief covers so many important areas. I really hope, for the sake of our country’s children, that we will get some stability now and that we will be able to progress—on opposite sides of the Chamber, and also by working together on some of the critical issues facing children up and down the country. I know that the Minister has an extensive and long-standing interest in children’s policy, so I look forward to seeing him hit the ground running. We are all looking to him to ensure that the upcoming kinship care strategy will be delivered before the end of the year, as his Department has promised.
The last debate that I led on this issue was in this Chamber 11 months ago. I set out many of the themes and issues that are in my ten-minute rule Bill from July last year, so I want to focus on the upcoming strategy as well as revisiting some of the themes that we have talked about consistently.
I acknowledge some of the progress that has been made over the last year in getting the Government to acknowledge kinship. In their response to Josh MacAlister’s independent review of children’s social care—the Government document was called “Stable Homes, Built on Love”—we finally saw an acknowledgement by Government of kinship and kinship carers. In the document, there was recognition that
“kinship care has received little national policy attention”
and that
“too little support is given to extended family members who play a caring role for their young relatives.”
When the previous Children’s Minister made the statement in the House of Commons, I was really heartened by the number of Members on both sides of the House who spoke about kinship care. It was the first time that I had heard so much attention given to this important issue, which has too often been overlooked.
The MacAlister review was the crucial moment in putting kinship carers on the map, kick-starting what has happened. It recognised that, with the right help, housing a child in crisis with family or friends they know and love will often be the best outcome for them. We know that, every year, thousands of grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings and family friends step up in this way, and they do so instinctively, out of love, despite the huge personal sacrifice involved. We know that children in kinship care have equal or better mental health, education and employment chances than looked-after children. With my Bill, I sought to press the Government to implement several of the MacAlister review’s recommendations.
I am delighted that, since then, kinship carers have shared their stories numerous times on breakfast TV and local radio. An ITV documentary highlighted their plight. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) shared, on Sky News, his moving story of growing up in kinship care, and I am really proud that in March this year, at the Liberal Democrat spring conference, Lib Dem members approved as party policy a lot of what was in my Bill about allowances, leave, pupil premium plus and having a statutory definition of kinship care.
Kinship care is on the Government’s lips and in the media spotlight in a way that it rarely has been. It has been a pleasure to work alongside these carers, the Family Rights Group, Kinship and other MPs in making the case that kinship care is worth investing in—saving the taxpayer in the long run. It would be remiss of me if I did not also acknowledge and thank, from the bottom of my heart, Andrew Burrell from my team, who is here today and has been the driving force in my office behind this work. He is leaving my office in a couple of weeks, and a lot of what I have done would not have been possible without his expertise and dedication, so I am very grateful to him.
Ministers are finally beginning to listen, and the attention given to kinship care in “Stable Homes, Built on Love” is hugely welcome. I am sad to say, however, that the document was policy-lite, with commitments to merely “explore the case” for greater financial support for kinship carers, and to pilot new “family first” decision making in just seven council areas. Other announcements were kicked down the road into the kinship care strategy promised by the end of the year, but, as the cost of living crisis bites, too many children in kinship care cannot afford to wait. There is a serious risk to children’s outcomes and the public finances if kinship care does not get the investment that it needs. The MacAlister review warned that, with no action, almost 20,000 more children will be in local authority care by 2032, costing the Treasury an extra £5 billion.
In recent months, Kinship has seen a significant increase in the complexity and severity of cases to its advice and support line. In its 2022 “The Cost of Loving” survey of more than 1,000 kinship carers, out of the three quarters who said that they were not getting the support they needed, one third said that they may not be able to continue caring for their children as a result.
The need for change is becoming increasingly urgent. We need the Government not just to acknowledge the love that kinship carers provide, but to value it, invest in it and step up for those who are struggling.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate and the very eloquent way in which she is putting the case. Does she agree that if what she described were to happen to that one third, it would be a disaster not just for those families and the care system, but for the taxpayer, because it would require a very expensive solution to a problem that we could resolve by other means?
Munira Wilson
Absolutely, and I am grateful for that intervention, because the right hon. Member makes a case that I have made throughout, whenever I have talked about kinship carers: the Government cannot afford not to provide this support. The analysis shows that if we paid kinship carers a similar allowance to foster carers, for every child that we prevent from going into care, the Government would save £35,000 a year. It is a no-brainer because of both the short-term savings to the Treasury and the long-term savings, in terms of the more positive outcomes that we achieve for those children.
So what opportunity stands before us with the national kinship care strategy? It provides a key opportunity for the Government to deliver financial and educational support to children in kinship care that will be truly transformative. Kinship carers cannot wait for another spending review or a different colour of Government.
My Kinship Care Bill, introduced last year, had four main asks, and I hope that the strategy will make significant progress towards implementing each one. First, all kinship carers should have a weekly allowance at the same level as the national minimum fostering allowance. Many experience severe financial hardship. Kinship’s survey last year found that two in five kinship carers had avoided putting the heating on, one in five skipped meals and more than one in eight used food banks. A national, non-means-tested allowance would end the system of patchy, means-tested allowances that reflect a postcode lottery in the support that councils can afford to provide.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
I apologise for missing the beginning of the hon. Lady’s speech, but I know that she has campaigned very effectively on this issue. Does she not agree, though, that the particular challenge with means testing in this space is that so many kinship carers are grandparents? They are retired and they have savings, but they need those savings for themselves and their retirement. It is vital that we have a system of support that recognises that particular challenge.
Munira Wilson
Absolutely, and that is why we need a consistent system applied across the board that is not dependent on the political persuasion of a local authority or what means it has to support kinship carers. I have come across many grandparents who are using up their life savings and people who might be about to retire and are having to quit the workforce sooner than they wanted. Kinship carers come in so many different shapes and sizes. That is why a proper means-tested allowance and national rules governing that is so important. The critical thing is that money should not be a barrier to a family or a friend taking in a child who is part of the wider family, because such barriers can lead to a child being forced into local authority care.
Secondly, kinship carers should be entitled to paid employment leave on a par with adoptive parents. Kinship’s “Forced Out” survey found that four in 10 kinship carers had to leave work permanently and a further 45% reduced their hours after becoming a kinship carer. Those carers are disproportionately women and are over-represented in healthcare, education and social care, which simply exacerbates our workforce crisis in public services.
Thirdly, the Bill proposes extending greater educational support to children in kinship care such as pupil premium plus, virtual school heads and a higher priority in school admissions.
Fourthly, there should be a definition of kinship care in statute that will help carers and councils to better understand who a kinship carer is and what support they are entitled to.
The Government’s response so far on the first of the three core asks has been disappointing, and “Stable Homes, Built on Love” has provided little hope. The Government have simply said they will “explore the case” for a mandatory financial allowance for kinship carers who possess a legal order. I am intrigued to understand more from the Minister about what “explore the case” means. Perhaps he will shed some light on it today. Will we see a cost-benefit analysis and an impact assessment? Are civil servants working actively on the issue, or are we talking about a couple of emails and phone calls?
I am pleased that the Government have adopted wholesale the definition of kinship care that was proposed by the Family Rights Group and have put it out for consultation—it was the same definition that I used in my Bill. However, the definition will have clout only if it is put into legislation and has statutory rights or entitlements attached to it. Simply putting it into guidance will likely not resolve the poor recognition and understanding of the term.
We cannot have another strategy that ducks the big decisions and kicks them into the long grass. Even if the plan has no spending commitments, which would be an absolute disaster, there are some steps that the Government could take to significantly improve the lives of kinship carers.
On data, our ability to make the case for greater investment in kinship care is greatly hampered by confusion over how many children live in kinship care and where kinship carers work. The latest estimate that 152,000 children in England live in kinship care comes from a University of Bristol analysis of the 2011 census.
In April, I wrote to the UK Statistics Authority to ask whether the Office for National Statistics intended to publish figures from the 2021 census. It replied that the Department for Education formally requested data on kinship carers earlier that month and that it would provide an update on that later in the year. I understand that that data might be published later this month. Will the Minister confirm that? Will it include information on the demographic make-up of kinship carers and their labour market patterns?
Meanwhile, parliamentary questions that I tabled reveal that, although the Ministry of Justice publishes how many special guardianship orders and child arrangement orders are granted each year, it does not know how many children are currently subject to one. What more will the Minister do to ensure that his Department, the Ministry of Justice, and local authorities have accurate information on the number of children in kinship care?
On therapeutic care, I know how important the adoption support fund was to my constituent, Kim, who used it for her granddaughter’s attachment therapy. However, Kim was in the uncommon position that her granddaughter was previously looked after before she went into kinship care. That meant she was entitled to ASF and also to pupil premium plus. As I told the House during my debate in October, that creates a totally perverse incentive for families to allow children to go into care so that they can receive additional support. Will the Minister review the eligibility criteria for the schemes so that more children in kinship care can qualify? Could the name of the adoption support fund be changed to acknowledge that kinship carers can also apply?
On legal aid, the Department has committed to
“work across government to explore…options for an extension of legal aid with kinship carers with SGOs and CAOs.”
Again, I would be grateful if the Minister explained what “explore” means as we seek to plug the gaps in legal aid provisions, particularly when children’s services first reach out to prospective kinship carers.
The Government must remember that one in three kinship carer households is non-white. Ethnic minority children in kinship care are less likely to have a legal order. I recognise that a legal order may signify that the caring arrangement will be stable and permanent. However, if the Government restrict all their support to children in formal kinship arrangements, they risk widening ethnic disparities. Will the Minister confirm that the strategy will be accompanied by an equalities impact assessment, so that the risk can be mitigated?
This debate comes in the context of increasing anxiety about the financial stability of many local authorities across England. As we have seen in the press lately, some are in a catastrophic position with their finances. The strategy must not impose on local authorities various well-intentioned duties, pilots and instructions to change their culture without giving them the resources to implement them effectively.
I will end with a reminder of why we are all here and of the families whose lives we are trying to improve. Kim was one of the first kinship carers in my constituency to contact me. She is the special guardian of her granddaughter. She says of her experience:
“We are fortunate to have an understanding of the system now and can advocate for our granddaughter. However, the emotional, financial and physical price has taken its toll! Even 5 years into our Special Guardianship Order and with the help that we have been able to access, my granddaughter really struggles with any change…On a personal level, we have had to give up our roles as grandparents and become her parents. We have done so gladly but there are moments when we do grieve for those lost roles that we will never get back.”
April, which is not her real name, spoke to me about caring for her nephew after his mother passed away. She says:
“Little did I know that [by] giving my sister peace of mind as she faced leaving her small children, and [by] giving my nephew the security and care he desperately needed, I was unwittingly stepping into a ‘private arrangement’ with zero support.
We want to focus on the positives. It is a positive [that] we’ve got a new family member. But if we have to worry about financial things or [other] support…We don’t want to have to do that. I want to give him the very best childhood.”
Many of the kinship carers who are watching the debate from the Gallery will have similar testimonies. Indeed, last year I hosted an event in Parliament for kinship carers and heard many moving stories. I also met kinship carers in Sutton a few months ago. Although every story and every family is unique, the themes I have set out today, including the barriers and challenges kinship carers face in the system, are often a common thread. People are so exhausted from fighting against them.
I invite right hon. and hon. Members to come to tea in the café after the debate with me and the kinship carers here today to hear at first hand about their experiences. They and I now look to the Minister to make sure that the upcoming kinship care strategy will be truly transformational. By stepping up for kinship carers, we support every child to get the very best start in life, no matter what their background.
Martin Vickers (in the Chair)
Only one Back Bencher has applied to speak, so I invite others to bob if they wish to take part.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) on securing the debate and bringing to the attention of the House all the costs of being a kinship carer, as well as illuminating the tremendous value they represent and the real difference they make to the children they bring into their immediate family and circle. I also congratulate her on her speech. I join her in paying tribute to the new Minister, who has a strong background that touches on all the issues we may consider today, most notably performance in school, outcomes and achievement. He will also be looking to ensure that the children in our care have every opportunity to thrive.
I pay tribute to the Government for bringing forward the kinship care strategy, with the tremendous potential therein to bring the sector into a much more sustainable and fair place. They have acknowledged that historically the sector has not had the focus and recognition it deserves, merits and needs, so I really welcome the sea change that we all hope to see. I praise East Sussex County Council for the work it does in this space—indeed, its support was recognised by the kinship carers I met most recently—and I pay tribute to the council’s team as they endeavour to meet the challenges and support kinship carers across East Sussex, and Eastbourne in particular.
The hon. Lady is right to recognise that across the House there is not just increasing recognition of this kinship care but an earnest desire to see change and reform. Ultimately, this place is all about creating the environment in which this youngish generation can rise up and take their place. We are all about the business of making the world a better place, and enabling children who, for all sorts of reasons, cannot and should not stay with their parents to move to the security, love and continuity offered often by their grandparents, but also by their wider family, is surely a really important policy objective for us to try to achieve. As she said, we must ensure that finances are never the barrier, because in my estimation, if a child can remain within the love of their family, it is the very best place for them, in many instances, to recover, and then thrive.
We know that, over and above almost every other circumstance or opportunity, the support of family is defining. We know that applies to every child from every background and every socio-economic setting. It is a defining factor in physical health, mental health, educational outcomes and life chances, so every effort should be made to try to secure the wider family stepping up to welcome in children who, for all sorts of reasons, cannot and should not stay with their parents.
In that light, the urgency that the hon. Lady described is the question of the day. We are agreed that family represents the best opportunity for children, and that kinship carers have been overlooked for too long. That urgency and pace is before us, so we await the strategy and for a number of recommendations to find form. The scale of the challenge is deep and wide, with 162,000 children cared for by their kin across England and Wales. To give a measure of the scale and scope of this sector in the shadows, that is more than double the number in foster care.
As we have heard, grandparents are of course the most common kinship carers, but grandparents increasingly have to work until later in life. The tension and the pressure of working is one very real barrier and obstacle to their being able to reach out and provide a full-time home to a child. There are perhaps more children in private arrangements that are not included in the official figures, and in such cases finance and support do not find their way to them. The census has really important information, which I hope will soon come to light, to help us to understand the scale and scope of the challenge before us.
On the financial issue, one of my constituents who attended the meeting that I arranged with kinship carers told me that she fears losing her job; she cannot get the parental leave she needs to care for her granddaughter, but without her job she cannot provide for the granddaughter she wants to offer a full-time home to. That is an excruciating tension. And another constituent described the mental anguish caused by years of court battles.
In my constituency, there is a really strong support group led by Wendy Turner, who is here with us in the Public Gallery today, so in addition to recognising the hon. Member for Twickenham, the Minister, the Government and MPs from across the House, I most particularly recognise kinship carers themselves in this really important debate, because it is their stories, their testimonies, that will really and truly land the change that we all desire. I commend them for that.
Mr Robin Walker
I could not resist the opportunity to pay tribute to the local kinship care group in my Worcester constituency. Kinship Carers UK, which is led by Enza Smith, has campaigned hard on this issue and first drew my attention to some of the concerns. One of the issues that the group has raised is the status of kinship carers and recognition of that status, which I think is addressed in the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Twickenham. There is a concern that when kinship carers take a child they look after for NHS care, they may not be able to take decisions in the way that a parent could. They can find it very difficult to work with the health service and other public services because of the distinction between parents and kinship carers. Is it not very important that we come up with a very clear definition of kinship carers and a clear way for them to identify themselves and their relationship to their charge, so that they can access all public services effectively?
Caroline Ansell
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; he makes an excellent point. Some means of recognition is needed, not only in healthcare but in all the different arms and institutions of public services, not least in schools, because recognition enables far swifter decision making, which is surely in the best interests of the child and those caring for them. There must be a way to achieve that recognition of status, and I look forward to the Minister telling us how such an innovation could help to rationalise the whole experience of kinship care, so that we can better address the challenges.
Interestingly, one of the members of the group of kinship carers that I met talked about guidance on how to navigate the quite complex bureaucratic situation in which they found themselves: they are responsible for a child, yet are not in a decision-making role. As an example, we spoke about a guide that had been established for the Homes for Ukraine scheme, interestingly enough, in which there was a step-by-step and issue-by-issue walkthrough to help people who were bringing Ukrainians into their home, showing them how they could navigate some of the complex systems that exist and where they could find support. The point was made to me that there is no handbook for kinship carers. There was simply a call, sometimes in the middle of the night, and then sometimes there was a social worker on the doorstep at any hour of the day, saying, “Over to you.”
Regarding some of the issues around passports and access to medical records, we can surely bring some sanity to bear on the bureaucracy, which just provides another layer of challenge and adds nothing to safeguarding or child protection. When we have put a child in the care of a family member, we should most certainly empower that family member to make decisions on behalf of the child. The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester made in his intervention is very well made.
While their costs are no different and their challenges certainly of similar order, unlike foster carers the vast majority of kinship carers find themselves without a minimum financial allowance to assist with the covering of expenses. The current state of financial support for kinship carers is both insufficient and marked by significant variations, not always hinging on the specific needs of the kinship families, but rather being subject to legal and geographical disparities. If we bring a new understanding to bear, surely we can create something much fairer. The current system unintentionally—perversely even—encourages kinship carers to transition into foster carers, as this is often the sole path by which they can access reliable financial and other forms of support. That does not align with the best interests of the child. The repercussions, beyond the emotional and psychological, of this lack of financial support are profound and affect both families and the state. According to the 2022 annual survey report “The Cost of Loving”, six out of 10 kinship carers reported resorting to borrowing money, taking out short-term loans, or relying on credit cards for everyday expenses in the past year.
For every 1,000 children raised in kinship families rather than placed in local authority care, the state saves £40 million and enhances the lifetime earnings of the children by £20 million, so the statistics say. I know that there are very serious pressures on children’s social care, even in my own county. A mark of this is that, just this last financial year, for the first time the cost of children’s social services outweighed the cost of adult social care. This is a very significant development: not only has that cost now overtaken that of adult social care, but its trajectory is set to escalate exponentially. We know through our work on the Education Committee that the care sector is under massive pressure, to the point where providers in the marketplace are able to charge what they will, leaving county councils competing for places. Kinship care is, in part, an answer to that very real, sustained pressure on services. Surely it merits significant investment.
Before I came to this place, my career was in education, so I know the impact that family support can have on children and young people. It was too often the very parents I needed to speak to who did not come to parents evenings. Children who have been taken from mum or dad and out of the family setting for very good reasons have experienced trauma. The fact that that is not more recognised in school is, to my mind, a burning injustice. They experience challenges with their focus and stamina, and their ability to concentrate is affected because they come from a place of trauma. It is really that clear. They need additional support as urgently as possible, because with every year of lost learning, it is exponentially harder to recover and recapture that learning.
The effects of those early years can last a lifetime if we do not rush in with more support. Schools are the strongest partners for kinship carers when it comes to rescuing these children. I am hoping the Minister, perhaps today, but ultimately as we approach the strategy, will have some encouraging words around what new provision and recognition we might see in schools, because they are important partners too.
In addition to the financial support I have spoken of—the pupil premium plus—I long to see employment leave to facilitate kinship care, particularly at the start of the placement, legal aid to take the sting out of court battles, and recognition of the work of local authorities and a just settlement, so that they can more ably meet the needs of families in their areas. I look forward to seeing progress, recognition and investment for all of those things.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers, and to follow the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell), who made some important points that I wholeheartedly support. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for securing the debate and all the cross-party work that she does on the issue. She works incredibly hard in this area. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the time.
It would be remiss of me not to welcome the new Children’s Minister to his post. I hope that he enjoys his time in the Department for Education, dealing with some important issues. Today it is kinship care, but there is also the wider issue of how we improve children’s services across England, because in too many parts of our country, children’s services are not just underperforming but letting children down. I hope that the Government take a close look at those local authorities that could and should be doing better for our children and young people.
I wanted to speak in this debate because not only am I the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on kinship care, but, as many Members know, my wife Allison and I are kinship carers to our grandson Lyle. We never planned on becoming kinship carers, but life can be unpredictable. Sadly, Lyle’s mum and dad were unable to care for him, and social services knocked on our door. We did not think twice—of course we would take him in; of course we would care for him. It was, and it is, one of the best decisions that I—that both of us—have ever made, probably apart from getting married, as otherwise the rest would not have happened.
We love Lyle to pieces. He is a little ball of energy and joy. He is four now, and has just started primary school. He is kind, caring, incredibly funny and just the right level of mischievous. That is why being a kinship carer is such a strange conundrum: on the one hand, you are given this gift, whom you love more than anything in the world. Every Thursday evening I race home from this place back to Manchester, because spending time with Lyle is the thing above all else that I look forward to.
Caroline Ansell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because in my contribution I focused on the issues, challenges, setbacks and disasters, but I should also say that all the kinship carers I met spoke about love. That is how the conversations started: they spoke about their motivation to reach out and to protect the child, and how they would do anything and everything in their power to look after them.
Andrew Gwynne
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I can speak from experience. Mondays and Fridays have now got even better for me because I get to take Lyle to the local primary school. He is loving his time there, especially now he has worked out that he gets fed—last week was the first week he was there all the time, and it came as a revelation to him that they fed him at lunchtime.
On the other hand, as we have heard in the previous two contributions, kinship care is also exceptionally hard. Kinship carers are essentially picked up and dropped into a legal and emotional labyrinth, with precious little support from anyone. Like many carers, Allison and I had to go through the family courts to obtain a special guardianship order, which gives us parental responsibilities so that we can make active decisions about Lyle’s upbringing and about precisely the things the hon. Member for Eastbourne mentioned—healthcare, school and passports. We have parental rights and can make those decisions for Lyle. We had to undergo hours and hours of assessment—really intrusive police assessment of not just me and Allison, but my children and my friends. It is a gruelling system that demands an extraordinary amount from all those involved.
There are also wider family implications. Children are raised in kinship care for a variety of complex reasons, including parental mental health problems, substance misuse or illness. A kinship carer often has to manage a sensitive family situation while fiercely protecting the health and wellbeing of the child they are caring for. They are given absolutely no formal emotional support. It is only thanks to organisations such as Kinship and the Family Rights Group that Allison and I have been able to speak with other kinship carers, build support networks and access advice. It is amazing, because you find that you are not alone and that virtually every other person in the system has, to a lesser or greater extent, gone through the things you are going through, which you think are incredibly traumatic and a massive upheaval.
Then there are the financial implications. Allison and I have spent thousands of pounds in legal fees since we became kinship carers, and we continue to do so. There is always the threat of being taken back to court umpteen times. That puts a carer under such stress, trauma and emotional and financial pressure while they are trying to care for and protect their loved one. Allison and I are lucky because we are in a financial position to be able to pay these fees, but over the years I have found myself asking pretty basic questions: What if we did not have that money? What if I lost my job? What if I did not have a platform? What then?
The answers to those questions are as depressing as they are concerning. Last year, the APPG on kinship care found that 38% of kinship carers surveyed had received no legal advice about their rights and options in relation to their kinship child. Where carers had received legal advice, just 16% had received part or full payment through legal aid. Of the kinship carers who ended up in court, almost a third had to represent themselves. Some 53% of carers have made personal contributions of above £1,000, with 9% accruing costs of £10,000 or more. To be frank, the system treats kinship carers as an afterthought. They are a convenient solution in a time of crisis, and then they are left to drift in a buckling system that does not seem to recognise their existence, let alone the love they have for the children they care for.
Studies consistently show that kinship care, where possible, is in the best interests of the child. It certainly is for Lyle, and it is for hundreds of thousands of children across the country. Research from the parliamentary taskforce on kinship care shows that behavioural, educational and emotional outcomes for children in kinship care are, on the whole, better than for children living with unrelated foster carers. Kinship care allows children to develop a strong sense of their own identity and a feeling of belonging that comes from the stability of living within their wider network of family and friends. Kinship care placements are 2.6 times more likely to be permanent than unrelated foster care arrangements. It is essential that we embrace the opportunities that kinship care offers and that we make it easier for families who want to be kinship carers to do so.
It is estimated that around 100,000 children will be in care by 2032, and we must prioritise things such as kinship care if we want to avoid that reality. However, without even a legal, inclusive definition of kinship care in legislation, there is a long way to go. I am glad the Government have committed to publishing a national kinship care strategy by the end of the year. I sincerely hope Ministers will listen to the voices of kinship carers and organisations such as the Family Rights Group and Kinship and develop a system that gives kinship carers not only the support they need but the recognition they deserve.
I get uncharacteristically nervous when this subject is debated in Parliament. It sometimes feels a bit too exposing and personal to speak publicly about it. The reality is that there are hundreds of thousands of kinship carers in the same position as Allison and me. We owe it to them to get this right. Above all, we owe it to the children being cared for—children such as Lyle, who deserve all the love, care and stability the world can give. Kinship care makes that possible, so let’s make it happen.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) on securing the debate, and I welcome everyone with an interest in kinship care who has made the journey to Westminster to hear it. Anybody who has done so or who is watching cannot fail to be moved by the powerful speeches that have been made by all the Members who have contributed substantively or made interventions to share their perspective.
I dare say I could fill a speech 10 times over with stories of the love, care and benefit that kinship carers bring to relationships. The only time I have had to consider this issue in my own context was in a discussion with my then partner about who, in an ideal world, we would like to look after our children if we ever found ourselves, for whatever reason, unable to do so. That was a challenging enough discussion, so I cannot adequately express my gratitude and admiration for those who step up when they are called on to do so, as we have just heard.
The UK Government are set to publish their strategy for kinship carers later in the year. The Scottish Government have published a number of strategies, which they are in the process of implementing. This is not a matter of geography, because the best place for a child to be brought up is not about geography. The best place for a child to live when they need to leave their birth parents is, wherever possible, in that wider family setting, if it is safe and in the child’s best interests to do so. Kinship care helps a child retain that sense of identity, family, heritage and background and can help them—in ways that other settings, with the best will in the world, simply cannot—to feel safe, protected and valued.
We have already heard about some of the challenges that kinship carers face—the number of legal processes as well as the financial expenses associated with taking on these important responsibilities—and often they did not plan to spend their future years fulfilling those responsibilities. All too often, despite the best efforts of Governments and agencies, the available support is not—and can never be—commensurate with the responsibilities that kinship carers are asked to fulfil.
The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) gave an honourable mention to an organisation in his constituency. My good and hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar) specifically asked me to mention Airdrie Kinship Carers, and the vital network it provides across north Lanarkshire to support kinship carers. It is important that Governments do all they can to ensure not only that individual kinship carers and wider family units are supported, but that the support networks out there are well funded and can operate within a framework of best practice.
Back in 2020, the Scottish Government committed to something that has been called “The Promise”. That was the report of the independent care review, which had the aim of ensuring that Scotland could be one of the best places in the world for care-experienced children and young people to grow up. That is an extremely high ambition, but it starts from a place of knowing that improvement was needed. In the seven preceding years, there had been six reviews of how Scotland cared for children, yet the recommendations—even though they were based on a range of evidence, knowledge and understanding—did not lead to the kind of wholesale change that was necessary.
In publishing “The Promise”, Fiona Duncan—the chair of the independent care review—spoke to the chairs of those previous reviews to take on their perspective on what had stalled things. The answers that came back are probably depressingly familiar: a lack of buy-in for change; insufficient resources invested in enabling the necessary change; in some cases, restrictive rules preventing change; people simply not knowing how to make the change; and much more.
That care review had to be different, and it started with an unwavering commitment to making sure that the care experience community would be at the very heart of its considerations, to ensure as full and proper an understanding as possible of not only how the care system operates, but how it feels to those in it and what children and their families truly need to flourish. On concluding its deliberations, the care review had listened to over 5,500 experiences. Over half of the voices were those of children and young people with experience of the care system. The review took into account the experiences of adults who had lived in care and lots of different types of families. The remaining voices came from the paid and unpaid workforce, whose stories guided the review and whose experiences shaped all its conclusions. As the UK Government set off down their own path of considering similar issues, I commend the work encapsulated by that document, and the resulting action plan, which might inform their work in taking forward the areas for which they are responsible.
As the chair, Fiona Duncan, said:
“It is clear that Scotland must not aim to fix a broken system but set a higher collective ambition that enables loving, supportive and nurturing relationships as a basis on which to thrive.”
Last year, the implementation plan was published. The Scottish Government’s approach reflected “The Fundamentals” set out in “The Promise”, which were:
“To do what matters to children and families
To listen and embed what we have heard from children and families
To tackle poverty and the forces that push families into it
To respect children’s rights
To improve our language”
when we are talking about the care settings.
Some key policy commitments have come out of this plan, including to invest £500 million in preventive spend over the course of the parliamentary Session through the whole family wellbeing fund. That is designed to deliver transformational change and service redesign in the totality of family support, with the aim of reducing the crisis intervention that needs to take place and contributing to the improvement of lives across a wide range of areas, including, but not limited to, child and adolescent mental health, child poverty, alcohol and drug use, and educational attainment.
There are also measures to support local areas to implement the national guidance on child protection, with £10 million invested per annum through the care experience grant—a new £200 annual grant for young people aged 16 to 25 who have care experience. The grant is intended to provide additional financial security for those young people and to help reduce some of the barriers they face in their transition to adulthood and more independent living.
As much as we would like to, it is not always possible for SNP spokespersons to stand up and say how much better we think we are doing, because we know that that is sometimes simply not the case. One area where we have been playing catch-up is in having a standard national allowance. Prior to its introduction, Scotland was the only part of the UK with no national minimum allowance for care support grants for kinship carers—allowances were provided by local authorities, but there was variability. That floor has now been set, which does not mean that local authorities cannot continue to pay more, but there is now a baseline in place. These payments can help people to meet the costs of clothing, hobbies and funding activities and school trips—all the things that help young people to feel included, and not excluded or in any way different. There is also the expansion of the legal definition of “kinship carer”, which has allowed more carers to benefit from the Scottish child payment. We can already see the difference that that is making to the lives of many, whether they are in kinship care or not.
I am acutely aware of the time; nevertheless, it would be remiss of me not to conclude with the words of Scotland’s then Deputy First Minister, John Swinney, in responding on behalf of the Scottish Government to the independent report. He gave this message to the children of Scotland:
“We want you to be safe with the people that you know and love. We want you to be healthy. We want to give you a good education. We want you to know and feel that you are loved.”
As we have heard, the role that kinship carers play in helping to secure those outcomes cannot be overestimated. I very much look forward to listening to the rest of this debate.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) on securing the debate and on the work she does to raise the profile of kinship carers and the issues they face. We have had a high level of consensus in the debate. I welcome the kinship carers to the Gallery today. It is great to have them with us.
I also welcome the Minister to his place. I looked back at our previous debate on this topic about a year ago and I noted that I was welcoming the Minister’s predecessor’s predecessor, so I wish him luck as he hangs on to the revolving door that seems to be the Department for Education. I have no doubt that he will bring commitment to his role, and particularly to this topic, as we think about the needs of kinship carers.
I am grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell) spoke of the pressures on grandparents and older kinship carers, who not only have to bear the costs of looking after children, but are required to expend all that energy in a role that they were perhaps not expecting to perform later in their lives. I was glad to hear her acknowledge the pressures in her area, the pressures on children’s social care more widely, and the grotesque profiteering by private providers of children’s homes and foster placements. I hope the Minister was listening to a colleague on his own side of the House speaking about those pressures, which affect the children’s social care system across the whole country. The pressures bear down on families, which results in increasing numbers of children having to enter the care system.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) and thank him for all the work he does through the APPG on kinship care, of which I was a member until I took up my current role. It is not easy to speak about one’s own personal circumstances It is not easy to speak about one’s own personal circumstances, but he speaks so movingly about his role as a kinship carer for his grandson, Lyle. In doing so, he gives voice to kinship carers across the country, and he is a powerful and important advocate. As I have said before in this Chamber, Lyle is a very lucky little boy to have such fantastic grandparents as my hon. Friend and his wife.
I pay tribute to kinship carers across the country who step in to look after a child when a family member or friend is unable to do so, and to the Family Rights Group, the charity Kinship and the Kinship Care Alliance, which work to support kinship carers and to advocate on their behalf. Stepping in to care for a child when a close friend or family member cannot is an extraordinary and very special thing to do. Yet most kinship carers I have met do not describe it as a choice; they love the children in their care and stepping in to care for them when there was a need to do so was a natural consequence of that love. They would not have thought of doing anything else. It is always humbling to meet kinship carers and hear their stories. The unconditional love for the children they look after and the joy and pride they receive from being able to play a part in their lives is always clear to see—but so are the challenges.
Over half of kinship carers give up work to look after the children in their care. Some 75% of kinship carers experience severe financial hardship. The children have often gone through significantly adverse experiences such as bereavement, abuse or neglect. Looking after children in those circumstances requires support and access to professional help. Kinship carers themselves may also have suffered trauma: the loss of their own child, supporting their child on a journey of addiction, or other challenges that have led to a grandchild, niece or nephew being in their care in the first place. They are sometimes left to manage complex contact arrangements with birth parents. While kinship carers may be in suitable housing, in areas where there is a crisis in the availability of genuinely affordable housing, many will not be, and taking on kinship care may result in overcrowding in a family home that had previously been big enough to meet the family’s needs.
I have met kinship carers who are using their savings to care for children. I remember one grandmother in particular who was so committed to her grandson continuing to play football—it was the one thing he loved that helped with the trauma he had experienced—that she was dipping into her pension lump sum to pay for it, and to meet other costs as well. Support for kinship carers is inconsistent across the country. I recall another kinship carer who had taken on the care of her friend’s children. Contact arrangements with her friend were really fraught, but her local authority told her that because the arrangement was private, they had no role to play and could not support that process. These issues are widespread across the country. Some 180,000 families are in the same situation: they have stepped in to care for the children of a family member or close friend, but they find that enormous personal sacrifice and considerable extra cost are involved, often with little meaningful support.
In thinking about the needs of kinship carers, we must also look at why the number of children who cannot be cared for by their birth families is increasing. We cannot escape the Government’s record on this matter: the Family Rights Group has highlighted the erosion in early help and support for vulnerable families; more than 1,300 Sure Start centres have closed since 2010; and the National Children’s Bureau estimates that Government funding available to councils for children’s services fell by 24% between 2010 and 2020. The pandemic is likely to have made it even harder for councils to offer early intervention services for families. I have certainly been told by local authorities across the country that early help and support that was available more than a decade ago has all but disappeared in many places. The failure of the Government to ensure that early help is always available to the most vulnerable families, wherever in the country they live, has a direct bearing on the extent to which families are able to overcome challenges and avoid a crisis in which it becomes unsafe or impossible for children to remain with their parents.
Caroline Ansell
I too am most concerned about support for vulnerable families, particularly to help families stay together. I have some experience of Sure Start centres, and they are focused on those first few, very important, years. The family hub model, which the Government have brought in, looks to extend support from the early years of nought to five all the way through to 18. I know many parents struggle particularly in the teenage years, rather than with tinies. Does the hon. Lady recognise the work of family hubs, and does she have experience with them?
Helen Hayes
Certainly, the hon. Lady is right to say that the challenges facing children and young people have changed over the last decade, particularly those facing teenagers and the need for help and support. I absolutely recognise that point, but I would say to the hon. Lady that we had Sure Start centres in every community up and down the country at a very local level. In many places, they have all but disappeared. So far, the family hubs model funds a family hub in only half of all local authority areas, which does not meet the scale of the challenge. If Sure Start centres had been protected and allowed to evolve to meet the changing needs of families and children, we would be in an altogether different position than the one that affects far too many families up and down the country. We have never been committed to an entirely static model of delivery, but the infrastructure of Sure Start centres is a very grave and serious loss, in all those areas where they have not been protected and have closed.
Kinship carers are an essential part of the way in which our society looks after children. They deliver outcomes for children which are as good as, and often better than, foster care or children’s homes, for a fraction of the cost. The Government have been failing children and families for 12 long years. The focus on kinship care in the independent review of children’s social care was very welcome, with a large degree of consensus around many of its recommendations. We are still, however, seeing only piecemeal measures from the Government. It is vitally important that the kinship care strategy is published by the end of the year, as the Government have promised. I hope that the Minister will say more today to confirm that is the case, and that he might also comment on whether that strategy will be cross-departmental, looking at all the areas where kinship carers need support and where it is not being provided.
Kinship carers have waited too long to be fully recognised as a vital part of children’s social care. Their love has not been valued sufficiently. If we are successful in winning a majority in the House of Commons at the next general election, Labour in Government will put children and their families at the heart of everything we do, as we did before. We will support the vital work of kinship carers—support which is so long overdue.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (David Johnston)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank all the Members who have played a part in this well-informed debate today. I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) on securing this debate and those she has secured previously. She says it is traditional for those in my role to resign a few days after she has had her debate; I will try my best not to do so, but it probably partly depends on how this debate goes. I also commend her staff member Andrew, who is soon to depart, for all the work he has done in supporting her on this. It is such an important issue, and I too am pleased to have kinship carers in the Gallery—Wendy and others—with whom I hope I can have a little chat at the end of the debate.
I wholeheartedly share the hon. Member for Twickenham’s commitment to championing the important role of kinship carers. They play a vital role in the children’s social care system and in the lives of children up and down the country. Too often, they play that role without people knowing or appreciating it. I think we all agree that too little attention has been paid to this area of kinship carers for far too long. We are determined to change that.
About 17 years ago, I did some mentoring through an organisation that helped primary school children who were showing behavioural problems in the classroom as a result of what was going on at home. I was matched with a nine-year-old boy who had been removed from his parents due to what was going on at home and placed on the child protection register. He had been placed with his gran. In this mentoring capacity, the mentor would take the mentee out each week to do fun activities—football, ice skating, swimming and things like that—while trying to work with them on the behaviour they were exhibiting in school.
When I picked the boy up at the beginning of the day and when I took him back at the end of the day, I got a glimpse of the incredible role that his gran was playing. She was in her 60s, she had raised her children and this was not what she had expected to be doing—a number of Members have said this—and yet, through boundaries, discipline, nutritious food and stable bedtimes, she was transforming the little boy’s behaviour far more than was the weekly session I was having with him. That was my first experience of the incredible role that kinship carers play, so I am determined that we should do as much for them as we can.
I will now set out the steps that the Government are taking to improve the position of kinship carers. Towards the end, I will try to answer as many of the questions as possible; for any I do not cover, Members should feel free to intervene, or I will write to them afterwards.
When a child cannot remain with their parents, wider family and friends can offer a safe and loving alternative to being looked after and having to move in with strangers. We have discussed how many people are in kinship care, and at this moment in time about 110,000 children in England are being brought up in kinship care, many of whom would otherwise be in local authority care if members of their extended family network had not stepped in. The census data was mentioned, and our 110,000 figure comes from the 2021 census information, which was published in July. I am happy to show Members the source of that after the debate.
Living in kinship arrangements can offer a stable and permanent option for children. Maintaining connections with family and the people they love can contribute to a healthy sense of identity and belonging. Hon. Members will know that I am passionate about social mobility and closing the gap between disadvantaged children and their peers, and, as has been touched on in part, children living in kinship care, on average, achieve better GCSE results, have a greater chance of being in employment and experience better long-term health outcomes than children who grow up in foster care or residential care. For example—this has been quoted already—in 2021, it was found that 69% of adults who experienced kinship care were in employment, compared with 59% or 48%, respectively, for those with a history of fostering or of residential care. The average attainment 8 score for those with a special guardianship order was 33.5, compared with 22.2 for looked-after children. The data therefore backs up the experience that Members have been sharing.
Not only does kinship care offer better outcomes for children—which is the primary concern of everyone present—but it makes better economic sense. Investing in kinship care is considerably more cost-effective for local authorities than paying for residential care homes, for example. I therefore want to create a system that not only helps kinship arrangements to take place, but actively supports kinship families to thrive. What I do not want to hear any more of is the gruelling system that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) is having to go through with Lyle.
The independent review of children’s social care highlighted the lack of focus on kinship care from successive Governments. It has been a problem for some time. The review made a number of ambitious recommendations, which we hope will increase the number of children who can remain within their family networks. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell) touched exactly on the Government’s focus, which is that children should remain with their families if they can, although that will not always be possible. Where possible, that is our primary focus: we want children to be with their immediate or extended family, before they have to go into care homes or other less desirable situations.
The strategy sets out six pillars of action, including unlocking the potential of family networks. In July, we announced that we will start implementing family network support packages through the £45 million Families First for Children pathfinder and family network pilot. Family network support packages will look at how to use financial and other practical means to unlock barriers to family networks being able to provide support for children to stay safely at home. As has been touched on—this is perhaps more relevant to the debate—we have also made a commitment to implement or explore the recommendations on kinship care. I stress to Members that, as I said to my team as soon as I was appointed, we will have no slackening of the timetable. We will publish the strategy before the end of the year, whatever it takes. It will set out a long-term vision for kinship care and how we can better support carers and children. I will not be able to set out all the details of the strategy today, but I will set out some of the progress we hope to make.
I wholeheartedly agree with right hon. and hon. Members who have highlighted that kinship carers need more support than is currently available to them. We have developed a twin-track system, whereby there is much more support for foster carers than there is for kinship carers. There is no great logic to that; it is just where successive Governments have focused their attention. We are trying to bring the two together. Part of that is about helping people to connect with other kinship carers, which is why the Department has supported kinship families through our £2 million partnership with the charity Kinship, whose good work has already been commended, to deliver high-quality peer support groups for kinship carers. Those groups are already supporting kinship carers, and we hope that 100 peer support groups will be established by January 2024. Also to come will be a whole host of face-to-face and online training, and useful resources—some of the things that Members have talked about—to provide access to the type of independent guidance and support that people can get in other areas already.
The independent review of children’s social care recommended a financial allowance for special guardians and carers looking after children under a child arrangement order. I think we all recognise the strain that many kinship families are under, and we are exploring the feasibility of mandating a financial allowance for kinship carers in every local authority. I chaired the national implementation board this week, and some of the local authority representatives said that a number of local authorities are already providing such an allowance. Part of our limitation here, which I will come to, is about data, as some Members have touched on. Part of exploring the feasibility is to get a picture on exactly who is doing what already, but I agree with the hon. Member for Twickenham and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne that finance should not be a barrier, particularly when we want children and young people to remain with their families.
We recognise that there has been a lack of a consistent, recognised definition of kinship care, which can make it difficult to know whether people are in a kinship arrangement and what help they are entitled to. In “Stable Homes, Built on Love”, we published a draft definition of kinship care and sought the views of people with lived experience, as well as those of professionals and charities, on whether the definition helps to create an accurate understanding of kinship. I am grateful to those who have responded to the consultation, and the definition has been pretty well received. I cannot commit to introducing legislation at this time, but the feedback we have had so far has been positive.
Legal support has been mentioned. Again, kinship carers sometimes have to pay extraordinary amounts of money to get the legal advice they need, even though they are doing something that society should want them to do and should enable. From May this year, the Ministry of Justice extended legal aid entitlements to prospective guardians making applications for special guardianship orders in private family law proceedings. We predict that that will benefit thousands of potential kinship carers.
On workplace entitlements, it is important to recognise the employers who are already providing paid leave and so on, and have been doing so without the Government mandating them to do so. Wherever that is possible, we welcome it. The kinship strategy will provide an update on our commitment to explore workplace entitlements for kinship carers.
On pupil premium, which my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne touched on, at the moment, children who live with special guardians and were previously looked after by the state are eligible for pupil premium plus, a non-means-tested, non-income-tested benefit. Kinship children who were not previously looked after but have been entitled to free school meals can get pupil premium in the usual way that other children can if they have been eligible within the last six years. We constantly review and assess the effectiveness of pupil premium to ensure that it is supporting the children most in need of it.
Briefly on admissions, in 2021 we introduced changes to the school admissions code to improve in-year admissions. That enables kinship carers to secure a school place for their child in year if they cannot do so by other means.
Finally in this area, children who are living with special guardians and have previously been in state care can access therapeutic support via the adoption support fund. Last year, we made that support available to children who live with relatives under child arrangements orders. We are looking to improve local authority engagement with the adoption support fund, to increase the proportion of eligible kinship carers—
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful to the Minister for covering this point. It is not quite as simple as he is making out, because a number of local authorities—my own included—make it very difficult for people to access those services through that fund, unless they have gone through all kinds of hoops and loops with other statutory services prior to making an application. Will the Minister ensure that all local authorities understand that the message coming from him is that those services should be available to kinship carers?
David Johnston
I am grateful to the hon. Member for that point and I will certainly do that. He made a point about assessments, which I will come to. Again, they should be simpler than they have been in his experience.
My Department is also working with Ofsted to improve the visibility of kinship care in inspection reports. Through updated guidance and inspector training, Ofsted will make it clearer that reports should refer to the quality of support being provided to kinship carers and children in kinship care arrangements.
Let me try to rattle through as many of the questions as I can. We have touched on data. I have given the 2021 census figures, but data collection is something that my officials are really working on, because there just has not been enough. Not having that data is inhibiting our ability and some of the things that we want to do in the strategy.
I was asked whether there will be an equalities impact assessment. Yes, there will be a thorough equalities impact assessment as part of the forthcoming strategy.
On the bureaucracy that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne referred to, part of the setting of the definition is to ensure that agencies are better able to provide the right support and remove some of the hurdles that kinship carers experience. We hope that the peer support groups will support that work as well.
I just touched on the point made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish about assessments. LAs have the statutory responsibility for assessing kinship carers, because they have the legal duty to safeguard vulnerable children, but those assessments should be proportionate and prioritise the best interests of the child. I encourage local authorities to think about how their assessments could be adapted to be more supportive, and we will reiterate that in our strategy.
I need to leave a little time for the hon. Member for Twickenham to wind up. I thank her again for securing the debate, as well as previous ones, and I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. The debate has rightly focused on the issues that all too many kinship carers face. I put on the record my thanks and admiration for every one of those kinship carers—including Members of this House—for their selfless contribution to the lives of the children they care for. It is a huge commitment, but such an important one. I am proud of the progress that we are already making to support kinship carers, but I know there is much more to do, and that is what the strategy will contain.
I am fully committed to reducing the barriers to kinship care where it is in the best interests of the child and can offer a safe, stable and loving alternative to their becoming looked after. I look forward to publishing our kinship strategy before the end of the year. As I set out, that will be an opportunity to begin to make meaningful and lasting change in the lives of kinship carers and their children.
2.55 pm
Munira Wilson
I thank the hon. Members who co-sponsored my application for the debate and all those who have participated in it. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) said that he gets nervous when this issue comes up because it is so close to home, but I urge him: please do not stop talking about it. His passion, love, devotion and dedication to Lyle makes what he says so much more powerful than anything that I or anybody else says, because it comes from the heart and personal experience, and it is always so moving.
I was heartened by the level of cross-party consensus, not least from the new Minister. I was delighted to hear his commitment to the issue and his recognition of some of the key issues we raised. I feel encouraged. I know, however, that the stumbling block for the strategy will be the Treasury; my sense is that children tend to be a much lower priority for it. I make the Minister this offer: if he needs any help lobbying the Treasury, I, and I suspect Members from all parts of the House, stand ready to work alongside him to make the case and ensure that kinship carers and children in kinship care get support.
I do not think that I heard much about employment leave. Again, if the Minister needs to work with the Department for Business and Trade on that, I will be happy to support him in any way. We can follow up the detail of some issues in correspondence, but he started to address many of the questions that I and other hon. Members raised. We look forward to seeing the strategy, and hon. Members from all parts of the House will continue to work alongside him and to champion this issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved.
That this House has considered the matter of support for kinship carers.
Community Pharmacies
(1 year, 3 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
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered community pharmacies.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Mark. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, the purpose of which is threefold. The first is to thank community pharmacists for the great work that they have been carrying out in towns and cities for around 175 years. It was in 1849 that John Boot opened his first shop in Nottingham. More recently, the sector stepped up to the plate and was a key player in delivering the covid vaccination roll-out.
Secondly, I wish to acknowledge and support the Government for recognising in their delivery plan for recovering access to primary care, published in May, the key role that community pharmacists have been asked to play in the future of planning care.
Thirdly, and probably most urgently, there is a need to address the enormous pressures that community pharmacists currently face. If that is not done, the sector could cease to exist in large swathes of the country and will be in no fit state to perform the role for which it has successfully auditioned. There are clear comparisons to be drawn with the current state of NHS dentistry, and it is vital that action is taken to prevent a repeat of that particular nightmare.
A community pharmacy, previously known as the chemist’s in the UK and still known as the drugstore in the US, is a retail shop that provides pharmaceutical drugs as well as other personal products. There will be a qualified pharmacist available to issue medical prescriptions and to provide advice and guidance to customers on prescriptions and over-the-counter drugs, as well as on general health problems. Community pharmacies should be distinguished from the solely dispensing pharmacies located in medical practices and hospitals.
In my research for the debate I noted, as I have over the years, that in some places and at some times, relationships between GPs and community pharmacists can be fraught and strained. That needs to be addressed if the Government’s plans for improving access to primary care are to be successfully delivered.
In preparing for the debate I visited the Kirkley pharmacy at Kirkley Mill in Lowestoft and Boots in Beccles. I thank them both, as well as Tania Farrow and Kristina Boulton from Community Pharmacy Suffolk, for their advice, information and support.
Community pharmacies are made up of privately run businesses and corporate chains. It is important to emphasise that both those groups are going above and beyond what any business could reasonably be expected to do to keep their shops open. It is the framework within which they have to operate that is at fault, not them. The private businesses often work ridiculously long hours for no reward in the service of their local communities, and the corporate chains use retail sales to subsidise the pharmacy side of their operation. It is clear that if reform is not carried out urgently, the steady stream of closures will turn into a torrent.
On 19 July, my hon. Friend the Minister—it is great to see him in his place—confirmed, in answer to a written question that I had submitted, that in the first six months of this year, the number of pharmacies in England reduced by 222. Yesterday, I was advised that Boots has announced that its shop in Orwell Road in Felixstowe, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), will close on 18 November.
While their number is falling by the day, there are approximately 10,800 community pharmacies in England. As I have mentioned, they do great work, and it was in recognition of that that the Government announced on 9 May that community pharmacies will play a central role in the delivery plan for recovering access to primary care, with £645 million being provided to support a pharmacy-first service.
That will include expanded treatment options for seven common ailments, including earache, sore throats and urinary tract infections. Community pharmacists will also be able to assess patients and supply certain prescription-only medicines without a prescription from a GP. That vote of confidence is welcome, but there is a concern that, due to a real-terms reduction in funding, about which I shall go into more detail shortly, there is an element of robbing Peter to pay Paul.
We now need the detail of how pharmacy-first will work, so that integrated care boards such as the Norfolk and Waveney ICB can set about its implementation. There have been no further details since May, and I will be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister can advise us when further information will be published.
An important part of the future of community pharmacy is for pharmacists to be independent prescribers. By 2026, newly qualified pharmacists will be able to start work having received the necessary training to become independent prescribers as part of their qualification. There is a need to ensure enough support to enable existing community pharmacists also to be trained as independent prescribers.
To become independent prescribers, pharmacists will need the support of a designated prescribing practitioner as part of their training. Sufficient investment is needed to ensure that that can happen, as designated prescribing practitioners will be required to support both those studying for their foundation pharmacist year in 2025-26 and the existing community pharmacists wanting to be trained as independent prescribers. Both will require 90 days in a prescribing environment.
Community pharmacists are under extreme pressure on multiple fronts—financial, workforce and regulatory, with many rules dating back to the 1930s. Medical supply instability is particularly acute. That puts operational pressures on pharmacists, imposes financial burdens on their businesses and creates worrying delays for their patients. Two of the biggest and interlinked challenges facing the sector, and indeed the whole of primary care, are access to services and the sustainability of the workforce. An increasing number of pharmacies are now providing core hours only, due to workforce challenges and financial sustainability. That means that fewer are offering services in the evening, at weekends and over bank holidays, and, in some cases, they are having to close much earlier during the day.
While the introduction of pharmacists working in general practice is to be welcomed, it has had the negative consequence of making it more difficult for community pharmacies to recruit pharmacists. A lack of access to pharmacy services cascades through other parts of the health system—to general practice, to the number of calls to NHS 111, to appointments to out-of-hours services and to visits to A&E.
Funding has been cut by 30% in real terms over the past seven years. As a result, so as to remain viable, community pharmacists are cutting back on the discretionary services that they provide. That ultimately leads to permanent closures—461 by Lloyds and 300 announced by Boots in June.
The 30% real-terms funding reduction, accompanied by inflationary pressures and workforce shortages, has driven up costs and has led to reduced hours and permanent closures. The £645 million for the new common conditions service announced in May is welcome, but it does not address the underfunding of existing core services. There is a need for a stable, long-term and sustainable funding commitment that can be delivered through a review of the community pharmacy contractual framework. This means not only additional funding, but alignment of care pathways and provision of incentives within primary care systems. The funding crisis has knock-on implications, including pharmacists being unable to spend as much time with patients as they would like, as well as the withdrawal of services such as free deliveries, particularly to care homes, and monitored dosage system boxes, which are important to many people.
To address these pressures and ensure that community pharmacies can realise their full potential, Community Pharmacy England has come forward with its own six-point plan. First, as I mentioned, pharmacy funding should be reformed to give pharmacies a long-term, economically sustainable funding agreement.
Secondly, a common conditions service should be developed and implemented so as to allow patients to have walk-in consultations for minor conditions. That would provide accessible care and ease pressure on general practice.
Thirdly, community pharmacies should look to build on other clinical service areas, such as vaccinations, women’s health and long-term conditions management for, say, asthma and diabetes, using independent prescribing rights. In this way, pharmacy can do a great deal in key NHS priority areas and will help to get the health service back on a sustainable footing.
Fourthly, the medicines market must be reformed so as to get out of the situation we are now in, where pharmacies are dispensing some medicines at a loss and patients are facing long delays for medicines.
Fifthly, regulatory burdens should be reviewed and where necessary removed, so as to make running community pharmacies easier and to limit the increasing cost of service provision.
Sixthly and finally, a long-term plan for the community pharmacy workforce should be produced to ensure that pharmacies can keep their doors open and to enable them to retain pharmacists in local pharmacies.
In many respects, this debate is a trailer for the main attraction next Tuesday, when Community Pharmacy England launches its vision for community pharmacy, as prepared by the King’s Fund and the Nuffield Trust. In the delivery plan for recovering access to primary care, the Government undertook to continue to engage with the sector, with specific reference to the piece of work that is being published next Tuesday. I urge the Government to adhere to that commitment, which is vital not only to rebuilding primary care but to giving community pharmacies a sustainable and viable future, thereby ensuring that after 170 years they can remain part and parcel of the fabric of our towns and cities.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
Order. May I remind Members that they need to bob if they wish to be called?
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to take part in a debate when you are in the Chair, Sir Mark. I congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on the timeliness of this debate and on the typically thoughtful way in which he presented his case. If I repeat some of his arguments, it is not that I am gratuitously copying what he said; the themes need to be emphasised, and I will try my best to do so.
At Prime Minister’s questions on 26 April, I raised the need for a new pharmacy-first approach as a means of providing additional capacity to deal with minor medical problems and consequently help to relieve the pressures on GP and hospital A&E services. I was encouraged by the Prime Minister’s positive response: he declared himself
“a wholehearted champion of and believer in the role that community pharmacies can play.”—[Official Report, 26 April 2023; Vol. 731, c. 732.]
Two weeks later, on 9 May, as the hon. Member for Waveney said, the Health Secretary made a statement to the House that set out the Government’s primary care recovery plan. In the second part of that statement, he announced the adoption of a pharmacy-first approach as part of a new NHS service. Again, it was a potentially positive step forward. He pointed out
“the incredible role that pharmacists played during the pandemic—their capacity to innovate and deliver for the communities that they served, freeing up GP appointments in doing so”.—[Official Report, 9 May 2023; Vol. 732, c. 219.]
As part of that approach, the Secretary of State committed to investing up to £650 million over the next two years, so that pharmacists can supply prescription-only medicine for common conditions such as ear pain, a urinary tract infection or a sore throat, without requiring a prescription from a GP. In the time available, I want to explore how that policy is developing and how the resources that the Government have earmarked meet the requirements for pharmacies to deliver such a service. I should add that the Secretary of State’s list could easily be added to, and I hope it will be.
I am grateful to the Company Chemists’ Association, Community Pharmacy England and Pharmacy2U for their comprehensive briefing for the debate, on which I will rely heavily. CPE points out:
“We are currently negotiating on how this funding commitment will be delivered to ensure that community pharmacies can meet patient needs and we welcome the confidence and additional investment in community pharmacy...Until those negotiations are complete, we do not know the extent to which this additional investment will help community pharmacies with these current pressures, but we do know that it will not address all of the pressures as outlined later in this briefing.”
Pharmacists refer to a funding black hole; I do not think the hon. Member for Waveney used that term, but he did use the figures involved. They point out that the recent announcement of funding is welcome but represents
“new money for new workers”.
They go on to say that there is currently an annual funding shortfall of at least £67,000 per pharmacy. Consequently, there is insufficient money in the system to deliver the services that they are already contracted for, let alone to take on new ones.
The CCA also draws attention to the trend between 2015 and 2022, which saw the permanent closure of 720 pharmacies. On a recent visit to Asda in Huyton in my constituency, I saw the consequences at first hand. The Asda pharmacy, which by the way is admirable, is having to fill the gap created by the loss of other smaller, independent local pharmacies, and the pressure on the dispensers while I was there was relentless. There was not a minute to pause for thought or have a conversation with people coming to pick up their prescriptions, because they were so busy.
Of the pharmacies that closed, 40% were in the 20% most deprived areas of England. That is worrying for me as the MP for Knowsley, which is one of the areas of greatest deprivation. One way in which high levels of deprivation are reflected is in the number of people in Knowsley living with long-term health conditions, which account for 70% of the total healthcare spend, 64% of hospital out-patient appointments and 50% of GP appointments. If community pharmacies could be deployed to deal with some of those cases where appropriate, that could help immensely in easing the burden on the NHS services that currently have to deal with them.
As the Minister will be aware, and as the hon. Member for Waveney referred to, there is a workforce crisis in community pharmacies in England. There is estimated to be a shortfall of 31,000 pharmacists. The Asda community pharmacy I visited had vacancies, one of which was for a pharmacist; I think they had been trying for a year, unsuccessfully, to fill the position.
I also want to raise the issue of medical supply chains. The current level of allowable margin is £800 million; it was first agreed in 2014 and has not been reviewed since. That amounts to an annual reduction in the margin available. In practice, all pharmacies are faced with diminishing resources for the purchase of medical supplies. On 18 May, with my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer), I held a roundtable event with local pharmacies. It was pointed out to us by independent pharmacies that they are unable to negotiate lower purchasing rates, as they cannot buy in bulk in the way that larger-scale national pharmacy companies can.
This problem will lead to more local pharmacy closures and reduced capacity to serve the new pharmacy-first policy. As CPE puts it, reforms are needed
“to the medicines market to avoid the situation we are now in, where pharmacies are dispensing some medicines at a loss and patients are facing delays for medicines.”
Pharmacy2U, which is a delivery service, has pointed out that stakeholders now have to deal with the issue. It notes the difficulty with the interoperability of IT systems and points out that
“there is significant variation in the systems used by GPs, and pharmacy services are often unable to easily access patient records, heavily restricting their ability to support patients with their medicines. Ensuring that pharmacists have swift access to this data is vital in empowering pharmacies to play a central role in a reformed and improved primary care system.”
It suggests that
“HSC and NHSE should consult with system-wide stakeholders to ensure all pharmacists are enabled to access and, where appropriate, update patient records in line with data privacy rights, ensuring that GPs and pharmacies have a complete picture of the patient they are caring for.”
I will make one final point before asking some questions. I wrote to the Secretary of State on 17 July, following some written questions that I had tabled concerning hub-and-spoke provisions and the use of third-party hub providers; the answers seemed to indicate a specific problem in Northern Ireland. I would be grateful if the Minister chased up my letter, which has had no response, and if he could give an indication in his speech as to how the issue can be resolved.
I will conclude with a few questions. First, how do the Government propose to address the funding black hole that I have referred to? Secondly, what is the Government’s strategy for halting the alarming number of pharmacy closures? Thirdly, how do the Government intend to address the workforce shortages? Fourthly, will the Minister agree to consult stakeholders on how to deal with the issue of interoperability of IT systems? Finally, how does the Minister propose to enable all pharmacies, including independent pharmacies, to fund the gap between the cost of acquiring medicines and the resources available?
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
It is nice to see you in the Chair, Sir Mark. Well done to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), my dear friend with whom I entered Parliament in 2010: as always, he has set out the issues beautifully, with the forensic ability for which he is known. The people of Waveney are very lucky to have him, as is this House. It was my hon. Friend who inspired me to speak in this debate: he collared me in the corridor, as he often does. I am only too pleased to do so, both as MP for Winchester and Chandler’s Ford and as Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee.
When I was pharmacy Minister, I spent many happy hours where the Minister is sitting today, answering debates on the subject. We have moved on a lot, and I give credit to the Minister, the Secretary of State and this Prime Minister of all Prime Ministers—if they had not understood community pharmacy, we were never going to get there. All credit to them for the investment and the work that has gone on. As somebody once said, “Much done, more to do.”
My fellow Committee members, one of whom is here today, and I are all too aware of the challenges facing community pharmacies in all our constituencies. Nevertheless, there is great cause to be positive. In my opinion, pharmacies have huge untapped potential to transform the way patients access and receive healthcare services, and to support the building of a preventive healthcare approach, which the Minister knows I am passionate about and which I suggest is central to the future sustainability of the NHS itself.
Earlier this year, the Select Committee launched an inquiry into pharmacy. It will look broadly at pharmacy services including hospital pharmacy, which is often overlooked but is very important, but community pharmacy will form the largest part of it. The terms of reference include specific questions about funding, which my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney and the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth) both mentioned; the commissioning arrangements for community pharmacy, which I know we will come on to; the locations of community pharmacies; and, of course, achieving the ambitions of Pharmacy First in the primary care recovery plan. I trialled Pharmacy First in the north-east when I was pharmacy Minister; I am a great believer in it, so it is great to see how the Minister has taken it forward.
A key question that our inquiry seeks to answer is, “What does the future of pharmacy look like, and how can the Government ensure that it is realised?” We will be very forward-looking, considering how the challenges of today can be addressed to ensure that the potential is realised. However, we will also look at the services that community pharmacies are already offering or are set to offer through the pharmacy-first approach. Crucially, we will also consider the areas in which there is a chance to go further.
Community pharmacists are highly trained clinical professionals. They are not retailers; they are clinical professionals. They want to do more, they can do more and we should trust them to do more. We will also consider some of the innovations in the sector—for example, how automation and hub-and-spoke arrangements, which we have not talked about much today, will come in and help. We will also look at the workforce challenges, which we have heard about, including issues around the retention of pharmacists in the community pharmacy sector and around training.
The inquiry will be wide ranging. We are looking forward to getting started with oral evidence, hopefully in November. There is no shortage of enthusiastic people in the community pharmacy sector who are willing to share their experiences with us. We are incredibly grateful to all those organisations and individuals who sent in their written evidence, and we hope to continue seeing that positive engagement from the sector when we start the oral evidence sessions.
The Committee has the benefit of drawing upon the work of our expert panel, which is chaired by Professor Dame Jane Dacre, whom the Minister will know. The panel, set up by my predecessor, now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, evaluates the Government’s progress on meeting their commitments on an area that I ask it to look at. It delivers a Care Quality Commission-style rating as to where we are, which can range from “outstanding” to “inadequate”. I asked the panel to look at the pharmacy sector, based on its own members’ expertise and research and submissions by stakeholders, as well as some roundtable events with patients, people in receipt of social care, and pharmacy professionals.
The panel recently published a report on its evaluation of Government commitments in the pharmacy sector. It was assisted by several pharmacy professionals and leaders who steered its decision on which commitments to evaluate. Community pharmacies were an obvious area to focus on. The panel looked at two specific community pharmacy-related commitments, rating the position on both as “requires improvement”. I take a glass half-full perspective. There are good things in the report; I know that the Minister will look carefully at it. The first commitment was to maintain the pharmacy access scheme, which aims to protect access to local, physical NHS pharmaceutical services in areas where there are fewer pharmacies. The chemist may be the only shop in town—that is often the case in coastal communities.
The second commitment was to review the community pharmacy funding model and the balance between the spend on dispensing and new services within the community pharmacy contractual framework, which is negotiated between Community Pharmacy England—formally the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee—the Government and NHS England. The panel concluded that community pharmacies are struggling to meet increased demand. It is a good thing that demand is increasing, because it means that people are increasingly turning to the chemist, but they are struggling to meet that demand, to deliver services, and even to remain open with the current funding model, which was set in 2019 for five years and has not been reviewed significantly during that time.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney suggested, pharmacies are also struggling as their staff are encouraged to take up roles in primary care, funded by the additional roles reimbursement scheme. The right hon. Member for Knowsley touched on the fact that IT systems can make it difficult for patient information to be shared between community pharmacies, hospitals and general practices. Taken together, those challenges can negatively impact community pharmacies’ ability to deliver services and support other parts of the health and care system.
The National Pharmacy Association does great work in this space and has been in touch with us. It commissioned an EY report, which found that almost three quarters of pharmacies in England face a risk of closure if a serious funding shortfall is not addressed, with 72% of them forecast to be loss-making within the next four years. The Minister will be aware of that report. It is sober reading, but it would be wrong to overlook it. It is a serious piece of work.
Going back to the expert panel, members also raised concerns about the lack of data collected on the performance of schemes designed to improve community pharmacy services, especially whether they were delivering the positive outcomes that we want for patients and people in receipt of social care. There is a lot for the Government to consider in the panel’s report. We still await their response, which, I hasten to add, has not timed out yet. We look forward to that.
I want to touch on a couple of other points. First, I co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on HIV and AIDS. We are calling for the HIV prevention pill, PrEP—pre-exposure prophylaxis—to be available through community pharmacies, with clear financial accountability for its provision. I think that would be a game changer for HIV prevention. It would be a critical part of ending new cases of HIV by 2030, urged by the HIV Commission, which I commissioned as the Minister and, after leaving Government, became a commissioner on, along with the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting). The Opposition Front Benchers have signed up to that 2030 ambition, and the Government have committed to it too.
Community pharmacies are well placed to prescribe PrEP. They carry out medicine use reviews for patients, and I think that they would be well placed to counsel on PrEP and to manage the prescriptions alongside other medications, because it is critical that medicines are prescribed in conjunction with each other. Community pharmacies are well connected to other parts of the health service, where integrated care boards have ensured that the IT is right and that the relationships are right. Furthermore, services provided by pharmacies act as a bridge between secondary and primary care, so that would complement sexual health prevention and treatment services and the advice that goes on. Will the Minister, in his summing up, touch on what progress has been made towards the commitment to make PrEP available beyond sexual health services and when it will be available in community pharmacies?
On the supply side, we have talked a lot about the bricks and mortar and the workforce, but the medicines supply chain, also mentioned by both previous speakers, is in need of serious love from Ministers. Pharmacies often have no idea of the prices being charged by wholesalers for some key generics, so they have no idea what is short, while pricing of products is often much higher compared with other European countries; consequently, margins in community pharmacies are often being eroded by uncertainty in the supply chain. I urge the Government to look at a robust system to plan for future pandemics and address shortages of key pharmaceuticals, because that undermines the sector and some of its great work.
There are so many things we could talk about, such as the ill-health prevention inquiry by the Select Committee, where I see pharmacies playing a key role. Much has been achieved. When I walked into the Department, I asked the special advisers what should be on my worry list, and they said: “General practice, Minister.” Some things never change. However, I passionately believe that community pharmacies are part of primary care, or pre-primary care as I used to call it. When I talked to parts of the primary care sector as the Minister, they would say to me: “We want to do more. We can do more. We are trained clinical professionals who can be trusted to do more.” The Government have picked up the mantle of that through the reform of, and new investment in, the contract, with the Prime Minister putting his personal authority behind the sector.
There is therefore much to be proud of, but we have to be careful that we do not end up losing community pharmacies. If we lose them, once they have gone, they will not come back, and we will have a supply-side problem in the bricks and mortar, as well in some of the pharmaceuticals. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney for securing the debate—it is, as always, an excellent subject for the House to discuss—and thank you, Sir Mark, for calling me to speak.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing this important and timely debate. I say “timely”, because only last week I delivered a petition to Parliament on this very subject, with the support of hundreds of people in my constituency. I know the strength of feeling across Bradford South on this issue, and about the value people place on community pharmacies.
I speak in defence of funding for our community pharmacies’ core services, which have been cut in real terms in recent years. Furthermore, I reiterate the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth) that our remarks cover many of the same areas, because they are so important to our constituents.
Community pharmacies are essential pillars of our national health service. The Government’s independent review described the open secret that community pharmacies are an “under-utilised resource”. As many of my constituents have put it to me, they are far more than just a place to get medicines; they are part of the very fabric of our local community. They are valued. Community pharmacies offer vital, immediate face-to-face services, often supplementing GP services, though without some of the vital resources that they need and deserve. When this country faced the covid pandemic, community pharmacies were there for us all. They stepped up bravely, maintained access to vital medicines, provided healthcare advice and delivered a record number of vaccinations. Now is the time to both thank them and show them that we value our community pharmacies, and not to abandon them to what one of my local chemists described to me as “funding starvation”.
After 13 years of under-investment, the NHS is at breaking point, and pharmacies are suffering from lack of funding. More than 700 pharmacies closed permanently between 2015 and 2022, and over 40% of these closures took place in the 20% most deprived areas of the country—cuts, yet again, where services are most acutely needed. In the words of one of my Bradford South chemists, James Currie, this
“is yet another clear demonstration by this Government of their detachment from the realities and needs of the communities we serve.”
Pressures on pharmacies have been worsened by a workforce crisis, with an estimated shortfall of 3,000 community pharmacists in England. I will be grateful if the Minister clarifies how the additional roles reimbursement scheme will be “carefully managed” to ensure that we are able to recruit, train and, importantly, retain the pharmacists we so desperately need. We know that pharmacy funding was cut by 30% in real terms between 2015 and the beginning of this year. More and more work is now being piled on our community pharmacies, without adequate additional resources—a familiar pattern for our public services in the UK today. That has created a serious funding black hole, with an annual shortfall in England of an estimated £67,000 per pharmacy.
The pattern of reckless under-investment is simply not sustainable, so it was welcome news that NHS England’s delivery plan for recovering access to primary care said that further funds will be devoted to community pharmacies to expand their services. The new Pharmacy First common conditions service is a strong step towards easing pressures on GP services, but pharmacies are already overstretched and support for their delivery of core services is still inadequate. I ask the Minister to clarify the extent to which the additional investment will be earmarked for addressing existing pressures on core services.
In preparing for the debate, I found it useful to look back at the Government’s independent review of community pharmacies, published seven years ago. In the report, it was made clear that community pharmacies would be urgently required to help deal with
“immediate financial and operational pressures”
in the wider health service. Seven years later, however, the NHS is still struggling to deal with an historic backlog. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members present will recognise that community pharmacies are part of the wider solution to this very serious problem.
It is high time that we broke the cycle of crisis after crisis, followed by rushed solutions. Fair funding for community pharmacies will not only help support the local communities they serve, but strengthen the wider national health service and enable a vital and much-needed “prevention first” approach.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in today’s debate with you as Chair, Sir Mark. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for securing this important debate on community pharmacies, which are a crucial part of our healthcare ecosystem. I also thank him for his thorough explanation of the current state of community pharmacies and their needs.
I am often reminded that when we feel unwell or something has gone a bit wrong, our first point of call is often to walk into a pharmacy to get advice, support and medicine. Somebody there can put one’s mind at ease. Those who are vulnerable or elderly can also get their medicines delivered to them, which adds to the wellbeing of the local community. However, despite community pharmacies’ immense importance, they face huge challenges. Increasing demands and ongoing pressures are threatening their sustainability. Tatton currently has a healthy number of local pharmacies—18— supporting nearly 70,000 residents. However, pharmacies are disappearing across the country—and in Tatton, too. Government figures show a decrease of 222 between December 2022 and June 2023. The reasons for those closures include inadequate funding, rising operational costs and difficulty in recruiting and retaining community pharmacists.
Tatton community pharmacist Lee Williams, along with his wife and fellow pharmacist Caroline, were two of the first constituents I met at their pharmacy in Knutsford when I became the MP for Tatton back in 2017. They have since had to close their pharmacy. Lee explained to me that, despite it being a busy community pharmacy and having a good reputation—I can vouch for that, as I went there, too—they had very much a hand-to-mouth existence as funding fell and things such as rent, utilities and wages increased, squeezing their profit margin to the point where their business became unviable and the only thing they could do to safeguard their 12 years of tireless work was to sell it. It was a sad day for them, because their dream was for the two of them, married, running this community pharmacy and supporting the local community, but it had become abundantly clear to them for some time that the only way for such pharmacies to exist was to find efficiencies through having multiple branches. But now, even the large multiple retailers such as Lloyds and Rowlands have had to sell off their community stores as they move to remote delivery and go online in an attempt to become profitable. Even they cannot make community pharmacies work.
Adding to the problem of underfunding is, as we have heard, a shortage of medicines, which often results in community pharmacists dispensing medicines at a loss. Even when the NHS decides to increase the price it is willing to reimburse pharmacists for those medicines, it often comes after weeks of pharmacists gambling on what price they will have to pay, which creates huge uncertainty for them and their businesses. Ironically, it is the very low prices that the NHS is willing to pay that drive the shortages. If a manufacturer can sell those medicines for a higher price in other countries, it will prioritise those markets over our own. Community pharmacists find that their staff, in their role as pharmacists, are spending a lot of their time trying to find stock, on top of their crippling workload.
Community pharmacy is therefore at a low—the pharmacists would say an all-time low—which corresponds to much of the results of Community Pharmacy England’s 2023 pressures survey. It found that 92% of pharmacies are dealing with medicine supply issues daily, which was an increase from 67% in 2022; 97% of pharmacy owners reported significant increases in wholesaler and medicine supply issues; 81% of pharmacy staff said they were “struggling to cope” with the significant increase in workload; and 84% had experienced aggression from patients due to medicine supply issues. Worse—if things could be worse—pharmacists face more abuse from the public because of drug shortages.
To keep our community pharmacies afloat, Lee Williams advocates a complete overhaul of how community pharmacies are viewed and remunerated. I therefore welcome the Government’s announcement of £645 million of new funding for Pharmacy First. The Government realise that things need to be done. Much has been done but more needs to be done, and they need to pursue that as well as they can. We can say that with our Prime Minister as an advocate. However, in the light of the first-hand experience of my constituents that I have just shared and those survey results, how is the Minister ensuring the security and consistency of supply of medicines? How will the Government compensate pharmacies for the extra costs of offering additional services such as annual health checks, which require more skilled staff? I appreciate the difficulty of finding more funding for the sector, but I know that the Government will be looking to do that, so will the Minister explain how? Local pharmacies want to be at the heart of the health sector and take more of the workload off the NHS, but in order to do that they need to be adequately recompensed. They provide a vital service, and I know that they want to do even more.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I thank the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for securing this important debate and highlighting the challenges faced by the pharmacy sector. He spoke with great knowledge about many of the challenges around funding, and the opportunities for the pharmacy sector to address some of the primary care challenges faced by the NHS. I highlight the points made by the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), who has been very supportive of the pharmacy sector and has played a key role in pushing for the Committee to publish a report on the role of the sector and the challenges it faces.
I declare an interest as a registered pharmacist, the chair of the all-party parliamentary pharmacy group, and a member of the Health and Social Care Committee. I apologise to Members present, as I might end up repeating some of the points that have already been made, but I will try my best not to focus on them.
The first challenge I will highlight is the massive issue of the medicine supply chain. Every time I speak to pharmacy owners and pharmacists they raise the impact that uncertainty has on their profit margins. I recently started engaging with the pharmaceutical sector to understand the issues. There are issues around medicine distribution in this country, and there are middlemen supply chain distributors who keep hold of medicines and who are sometimes involved in driving up the prices, but we also have challenges around the manufacturing of generics, which account for about 80% of medicines used by the NHS.
About 2.2 million generic drugs are prescribed every single day in this country and used by the NHS. Despite that, it seems there were some oversights in this area when we negotiated our exit from the EU. Currently, legislation allows EU generics to be recognised in the UK but does not allow the EU to recognise UK generics. That means that British manufacturers are unable to submit their marketing authorisation applications easily within the EU. Therefore, they have no incentive to produce these medicines, or increase their manufacturing of these medicines, in the UK. It also means that they are unable to compete with their European competitors.
A great example of what is happening is that the EU has started investing about £20 billion in the manufacturing of generics since we left. So far, the UK, according to figures that I have seen recently, has invested nothing. Essentially, our UK manufacturers are being left at a competitive disadvantage. Aside from that, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency is facing significant challenges. It has lost a large amount of its workforce and is currently unable to process the regulatory applications coming through its doors—again, making it difficult for generic drugs to enter the UK. Essentially, there are regulatory difficulties and there seem to be limited financial incentives.
Secondly, I want to address the challenges of finance, which have been a massive issue facing the pharmacy sector. The sector has not been adequately funded in line with inflation for a very long time. That has led to many high street pharmacies closing down. In my constituency, Boots in Jardine Crescent had to close down because it was not financially viable for the business to continue. That has had a significant impact in an area of great deprivation and high health inequality.
Despite the challenges that community pharmacies face, there are also wonderful opportunities, which I have to admit the Government have started to recognise. I welcome their more than £600 million investment in the Pharmacy First programme, but there is a long way to go to fully take advantage of the potential that community pharmacies can offer.
Community pharmacies play an important role because they are the first point of call for patients, but they can play a bigger role in healthcare. Not only can they deliver the Pharmacy First scheme—I hope that will be rolled out and that the Government will add more clinical conditions to the list—but they can play an important role in other primary care services, such as vaccination, sexual health and the management of conditions such as cardiovascular disease.
I have always found it weird how a patient will come up to me in the pharmacy and say, “I have high blood pressure. I’m a bit concerned.” I say, “Sit down. Let’s check your blood pressure” and then I have to message the doctor to let them know. Then I will tell the patient to go to their GP to get a medication. In reality, that could have started and ended in a community pharmacy. That is something that hospital pharmacists easily do, and we regularly do it, so I encourage the Minister to look into the wider roles that community pharmacists can play in supporting GPs and primary care and in reducing some of the challenges it currently faces.
Many Members have spoken about the workforce crisis. To be able to fully take advantage of the potential of community pharmacy, we have to acknowledge the fact that, like many other healthcare professions in this country, pharmacies face a significant workforce crisis. We do not have enough pharmacists, and we are struggling to recruit and train more and to retain the community pharmacists we have.
Again, I welcome the Government’s workforce plan, but unfortunately it lacks the finer details of how community pharmacy will be supported in the long term. An integrated and funded workforce plan for pharmacy is needed if we are to enable pharmacies to support the community as well as the rest of the NHS. A larger number of designated prescribing practitioners is needed if community pharmacies are to assist with the provision of primary care. A clear pathway to ensure that that happens is important.
I know that the Government aim to ensure that we get as many prescribers as possible by 2026, and that is something I welcome. I am really happy that pharmacists are able to graduate with the ability to prescribe. However, there are many pharmacists in the workforce for whom there is no clear plan as to how they can become prescribers by 2026. I have spoken to many different pharmacy schools and they do not know how that is going to happen.
As the hon. Member for Waveney has explained, the process for getting sign-off is not easy. People have to ensure that they have found the right healthcare professional to shadow, as well as take time off work to do all the documentation and paperwork that is needed. Changes therefore need to happen, and further funding needs to be made available to incentivise healthcare professionals to take on more pharmacists and to mentor them and train them to become prescribers.
I also want to address areas that have not been mentioned in the debate so far. The first is technology, which has played a significant and positive role in the provision of the healthcare system. Since covid, technology has played an important role in allowing patients to have easy access to healthcare and allowing them to feel empowered. That is the reason we have seen an increase in the number of online pharmacies that are available, which has been quite positive.
However, I have some concerns. Figures recently published by the General Pharmaceutical Council, which is responsible for inspecting community pharmacies and online pharmacies, show that at least one in five of the online retailers it inspected in the past year did not meet at least one standard. If that was a community pharmacy, the store would be put on a clear supervision pathway to ensure that patients’ health was not put at risk. I would like to see the same happen to online pharmacies to ensure that they are better regulated as they continue to provide better access to medicines for patients.
I welcome the fact that the Government are looking at the supervision rules, which are outdated and were created at a time when we were making medicines in pharmacies and playing around with different active pharmaceutical ingredients. Pharmacy has changed since then, and the information available and the regulation around drug manufacturing has significantly improved. I welcome the consultation that is being carried out, and I encourage as many pharmacists as possible to give their feedback and engage with the consultation.
Lastly, I want to turn to the regulation of non-clinical managers. Community pharmacies either have a pharmacist as a manager or have non-clinical managers leading them. In the light of the Lucy Letby case, which highlighted the important role that non-clinical managers play, it is important that community pharmacists are also considered. Any new regulatory framework for unregulated management and leaders in healthcare should apply to not only those working in the NHS but those who have direct involvement in the provision of healthcare in our communities, such as community pharmacy.
Before I end, I would like to ask the Minister a few questions, which I hope he can answer today or respond to in a letter. Has any consideration been given to the generic industry, which, as I said earlier, accounts for a large amount of medicine supplies within the NHS? Can he direct me to the Minister who is responsible for drug manufacturing in this country, the changes in EU legislation and how we can bring about positive changes for our generic manufacturing industry? Do the Government have any plans to prevent future medicine shortages? I am already hearing pharmacies expressing concerns about the fact that winter is coming and they are expecting to have further shortages.
Are there any updates on the mutual recognition of medicines within the EU, and are any negotiations happening? Can the Minister provide an update on the prescribing scheme for healthcare professionals and whether any steps have been taken to address the issues I have raised? On funding, it would be helpful for many pharmacists to know whether there are any plans to help address some of the financial challenges they face. Lastly, as the chair of the all-party parliamentary pharmacy group, I wonder whether the Minister could spare some time to come and speak to key stakeholders in the sector, who would love to meet him and share some of their experiences.
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
I thank Members for keeping to time. I call the shadow Minister.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I thank the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for securing this important debate, and I congratulate him and Members on both sides of the Chamber on putting forward a compelling argument for supporting our community pharmacy sector and increasing its role in the provision of localised community healthcare. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth); the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), who chairs the Health and Social Care Committee and who made some excellent contributions; my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), who has been campaigning on this issue; the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey); and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi), who is a pharmacist and who shared her first-hand experience of some of the challenges. We have heard some great contributions in this debate.
It is a great pleasure to take on this important portfolio covering primary care and public health. In this year—the NHS’s 75th—its founding mission, to deliver care to everyone who needs it, when they need it, free at the point of use, is clearly under threat. Thirteen years of Conservative Government have left the NHS flat on its back, and the rightful expectation of my constituents and people across the country of an NHS with time to care for them when they need it is being trampled. We see longer waiting times, a postcode lottery in care and, shamefully, for the first time in decades, healthy life expectancy falling in many regions across the United Kingdom, including the west midlands, which I represent. That is one of the starkest indicators of how this Government, far from levelling up the country, have let it down.
The NHS is Britain’s greatest institution and my party’s proudest achievement, and nothing gives me fire in my belly like the prospect of what a Labour Government will do to fix it. Community pharmacy is a huge part of that, relieving pressure on overstretched GPs and delivering first-class care and advice to patients. As many hon. Members have highlighted during the debate, it is high time we realised the potential of pharmacies; as with the vaccine roll-out during the pandemic, they have proven time and again that there is so much more they can deliver as part of the primary care mix.
Pharmacists are the third biggest profession in the NHS, with around 13,000 community pharmacists across the UK, and together they prescribe more than 1 billion medicines a year. Not only are pharmacists medicine experts within the NHS, but colleagues have acknowledged their wider skills and knowledge, which are under-utilised. It is estimated that pharmacists give around 58 million informal consultations to walk-in patients a year, saving 20 million GP appointments. We also know that drug-related problems, often resulting from poor medicine management, cause around 15% of hospital admissions and cost the NHS hundreds of pounds a night, so pharmacies have an enormous contribution to make to the wider system.
Chemists do far more than just dispense repeat prescriptions and sell shampoo. They provide a range of clinical services in prescribing for common ailments and have a key role to play in public health and preventive services. There are great examples of innovative public health work that pharmacists are doing, such as in Bradford, where the “Wise Up to Cancer” initiative promoted health literacy among south Asian women, or the Jaunty Springs Health Centre in Sheffield, where a shared care agreement between the pharmacy and GP surgery meant that a majority of health interventions could be delivered in the pharmacy consultation room, freeing up the GP and cutting waiting times.
There is good practice in pockets across the country that we should be building on. I know that Ministers have belatedly acknowledged that, and there has been some expansion of the clinical services that pharmacies offer in recent years. However, a few sticking-plaster proposals really miss the opportunities that are there. Will the Minister update us on how negotiations with the sector over the Pharmacy First launch are progressing, and can he promise that it will be operational in time for the flu season? What consideration has he given to expanding Pharmacy First to establish a community pharmacist prescribing service covering a broader range of common conditions?
The Minister will know that in some countries, which are way ahead of the Government on this, such as Canada, pharmacists can prescribe for dozens of common conditions, freeing up millions of appointments in general practice every year. What is his long-term strategy to equip pharmacies for a future where their talents, capacity and expertise can be fully utilised and to fix the front door of the NHS?
Hon. Members have also raised a number of concerns about the financial pressures facing pharmacies. I know that the sector appreciates the additional funding announced in May, but that is of course tied directly to its expanded responsibilities as part of the primary care recovery announcement and does not recognise how current cost pressures are impacting the sector. Since the community pharmacy contractual framework was signed in 2019, the cost of doing business has continued to rise—especially since the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) crashed the economy.
The result has been many pharmacies closing their doors for good, disproportionately in the most deprived areas, as analysis from the Company Chemists’ Association has found. Last year alone, 110 pharmacies shut up shop, and many more have had to reduce opening hours, services and staffing. Will the Minister say what assessment he has made of the risk of more pharmacies closing down and reducing operations before the end of the current funding settlement in 2024 and what impact that will have on the NHS medicines supply, the knock-on pressures on other parts of primary care and the prospects for extended clinical services in the community setting?
As the Minister will know, the 2019 funding agreement was made on the promise that the Government would drive wider efficiency savings and regulatory changes across the system. For many community pharmacies, the roll-out of the hub-and-spoke model was an answer that would allow them to streamline their services. However, it has been 14 months since the Department of Health and Social Care’s consultation on hub-and-spoke dispensing closed, and we have still had no response from the Department, nor the secondary legislation that was promised. Can the Minister please give us answers today about the considerable delay in progressing with hub-and-spoke reform? What is the hold-up?
I would also like to raise the issue of staffing with the Minister. The community pharmacy workforce survey released last month revealed that, compared with 2021, there was a 6% reduction in the full-time equivalent workforce in 2022. The vacancy rate for pharmacy technicians was about 20%, whereas it was 16% for pharmacists and 9% for dispensing assistants. Two thirds of contractors said that they found it very difficult to fill pharmacist roles last year, and in turn, the bill for locum pharmacists rose by 80% last year alone. Many chemists are struggling to cope with those pressures, contributing to thousands of unplanned closures every month. That is bad for the taxpayer and bad for patients, so what assessment has the Minister made of the challenges faced by community pharmacies in hiring, training and retaining skilled pharmacy staff? Does he recognise that the Government’s workforce strategy has not kept pace with the scale of change in the sector? Does he share my concern that without a functioning community pharmacies network, the Government’s primary care recovery plan is built on very shaky foundations?
The next Labour Government have a plan to reform the NHS to shift care from acute settings to the community. As part of our plans to build a neighbourhood health service, we will realise the potential of community pharmacies, giving people services that they can rely on and access earlier on their doorstep. That will mean accelerating the roll-out of independent prescribing to establish a community pharmacist prescribing service that covers a broad range of common conditions. It will mean cutting unnecessary red tape to allow pharmacy technicians to step up, ensuring that pharmacists can work to the top of their licence and make more of their considerable expertise in prescribing and medicines management, rather than having repetitive dispensing processes. All of that will be supported by greater digital interoperability, allowing the profession to support GPs in the management of long-term conditions.
The Minister will have heard the broad support for the sector in today’s debate, as a trusted and cost-effective measure for addressing some of the chronic challenges we have come to expect under this Government. I look forward to his answers on what more he is doing to support this important sector and realise the potential of the pharmacy profession.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Neil O’Brien)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing this important debate. I start by echoing his thanks to our hard-working pharmacists, who do such a brilliant job. He raised six main points in his speech, and I can confirm that we are working on all of them.
Community pharmacies play a crucial role in our health system and a greater role in looking after people’s health than ever before. Pharmacies are easily accessible, and about nine in 10 people who visit one are positive about the advice they receive. The Government are investing in pharmacy to do much more. The delivery plan for recovering access to primary care announced an investment of up to £645 million in a new Pharmacy First service—a whole new NHS service will be created—as well as an expansion of the existing blood pressure check and contraception services. Pharmacy First will enable patients to see a community pharmacist for seven common conditions and be supplied with prescription-only medicines without the need for a GP. We are consulting Community Pharmacy England on the proposals in that delivery plan, with the aim of starting Pharmacy First this winter.
Pharmacy First builds on the community pharmacy contractual framework 2019 to 2024 five-year deal. That deal commits £2.592 billion a year to the sector and sets out how community pharmacy will be more integrated into the NHS, delivering more clinical services and effectively becoming the first port of call for minor illness. Under that deal, we have introduced minor illness referrals from GPs to community pharmacies, which have been a great success. A&E and NHS 111 can also now refer patients for an urgent medicine supply without a prescription from their GP. More than 2.8 million consultations have been provided at community pharmacies for a minor illness or urgent medicine supply since the start of those services.
We also introduced blood pressure checks, and community pharmacies have delivered 1.4 million checks since October 2021 and more than 150,000 in May 2023 alone. Huge numbers of potentially life-saving checks are being done. NHS England estimates that in 2023, more than 1,300 heart attacks and strokes will be prevented thanks to those checks, so I repeat my thanks to this fantastic sector.
In April this year, we introduced an oral contraception service, making it easier for women to access contraception.
In addition, community pharmacies now support and advise more than a quarter of a million people a month when they start new medicines, through the new medicine service, and 10,000 patients every month who have had their medicines changed following a visit to hospital, through the discharge medicines service. That supports medicines adherence, prevents GP visits and hospitalisations, and gives people a much better sense that they are taking the right medicines.
Community pharmacies are also playing a growing role in our vaccination programmes. Last winter, they administered 29% of adult flu vaccinations and more than a third—36%—of covid-19 vaccinations.
We have talked about the funding issue. In addition to the £2.592 billion a year, we added an extra £50 million last and this financial year, and we have made the additional sum of money that I mentioned available for Pharmacy First and the expansion of existing services. On top of that, we pay separately for flu and covid vaccinations, which, as I suggested, provide an increasingly important income stream for pharmacies.
The current five-year deal is of course coming to an end, and we will need to consider what comes next for pharmacy. As part of that, NHS England has committed to commissioning an economic study to better understand the cost of delivering pharmaceutical services. That study will feed into any future funding decisions on community pharmacy.
Several hon. Members raised the issue of the number of pharmacies, and we monitor that very closely. Our data shows that despite a number of pharmacies closing since 2017, there are about 10,800 pharmacies today, which is still more than in 2010. Despite the things that have happened to other high street businesses, we still see that there are more pharmacies and there are an awful lot more pharmacists—I will come on to that when we talk about the workforce.
However, rather than focusing merely on numbers, we should look at access. We know that 80% of the population live within 20 minutes’ walk of a pharmacy, and that there are twice as many pharmacies in more deprived areas. The right hon. Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth) is right that they play a crucial role in providing access in deprived areas. We ensure that that continues to be the case. Proportionally, the closures that we have seen reflect the spread of pharmacies across England.
We are seeing changes in the market, with some of the large pharmacy businesses divesting. That has an impact on the make-up of the sector: we are seeing the number of small independent pharmacies increase, while the number of pharmacies that are part of bigger businesses decrease. We are monitoring the market very closely as it evolves.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney mentions, through the pharmacy access scheme, we are financially supporting pharmacies in areas where there are fewer pharmacies and where there might be a challenge in getting access. To address the disproportionately high rate of closures of pharmacies that must be open for a minimum of 100 hours—the so-called 100-hour pharmacies—legislation was amended in April to allow those pharmacies to reduce their hours to a minimum of 72, which is still a huge number of hours to be open. That will support those pharmacies to remain open, providing extended hours, particularly for weekend access.
The same legislation gave integrated care boards the possibility of introducing local hours plans. That enables the local co-ordination that will ensure that there is something available locally at all times when people need it. It allows temporary closures in an area if there are significant difficulties with access and ensures that a pharmacy is always open somewhere in an area.
Some pharmacies struggle to find staff, and in some instances they have had to close temporarily, because a pharmacy cannot open without a pharmacist. There is more demand than ever for pharmacy professionals—an issue raised by various hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey). Since 2010, the number of registered pharmacists in England has increased by 82%, from 28,984 to 52,780. That means nearly 24,000 more pharmacists registered in England this year than in 2010. It is a huge increase, even compared with the huge increases elsewhere in the NHS.
On top of that, we have published the “NHS Long Term Workforce Plan”, backed by more than £2.4 billion to fund further additional increases and more training places over the next five years. The plan sets out the steps that the NHS and education providers will take to deliver an NHS workforce who meet the changing and growing needs of the population over the next 15 years. Our ambition is to increase training places for pharmacists by nearly 50%—building even further on what we have already done—to around 5,000 by 2031-32, and to grow the number of pharmacy technicians.
Employers clearly have a key role in retaining staff and making jobs in community pharmacy attractive. To support employers, we are investing in training to help private contractors to deliver high-quality NHS services. NHS England has provided a number of fully funded training opportunities for pharmacists and pharmacy technicians—the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) raised an interesting and important point on this matter. That is why we are providing 3,000 independent prescribing training places—applications for this year are now available to pharmacists—and, on top of that, another 1,000 fully funded training places for designated prescribing practitioners, or DPPs. As well as growing the number of people entering the workforce, we are making provisions to upskill those who are already in the workforce. We are as just excited as other hon. Members present about the huge potential of independent prescribing in pharmacy to build even more on what we are doing to grow the range of services in community pharmacies.
I have talked about what we are doing on funding and the workforce, but I also want to talk about structural reform and efficiencies, and enabling pharmacists to do more with the skills they have—an important point raised by a number of hon. Members. The plan for primary care sets out some of the things we are doing, including modernising legislation to make it clear that pharmacists no longer have to directly supervise all the activities of pharmacy technicians, who are, in fact, registered health professionals in their own right.
Hon. Members are right to point out that the nature of work in pharmacy has changed, and we must change the legislation to match that. We also plan to enable any member of the pharmacy team to hand out appropriately checked and bagged medicines in the absence of a pharmacist, remedying frustrating instances where patients are delayed, having to wait perhaps because the pharmacist has popped out for lunch. We are also consulting on changes to the legislation to enable pharmacy technicians to use patient group directions, which would enable pharmacy technicians to do more.
Last week, the House debated legislation to give pharmacists the flexibility to dispense medicines in their original packs, so that pharmacists use their high-end clinical skills rather than spending time snipping out blister packs, which is not a good use of their time. We are progressing legislation to enable hub-and-spoke dispensing—the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), rightly mentioned that—following public consultation on the changes.
Finally, we are also working with medicine suppliers to identify medicines that could be reclassified from being available only on prescription, known as “POM”, to being available in a pharmacy, known as “P”.
This is a huge package of structural reforms and a huge liberalisation of the structure of pharmacy, enabling pharmacists with ever-growing clinical skills to do more and not be caught up in bureaucracy.
The Government are thinking beyond that about what pharmacy can do in the longer term. Hon. Members are right that Pharmacy First, the fantastic new NHS service, could be added to over time. NHS England is also starting independent prescribing pilots, with a view to implementing pharmacy prescribing services in the future, based on what we learn from them. That has huge potential to take further pressure off GPs and make the best possible use of all the new skills in the pharmacy workforce.
The Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester, raised an important point about access to PrEP, as an example of an advanced service that pharmacies could provide. As he will know, partly because of his work in initiating this, the PrEP access and equity task and finish group was established in 2022 as a sub-group of the HIV action plan implementation steering group, to improve access to PrEP. That steering group is working to develop a PrEP road map based on the task and finish group’s recommendations. I can say today that the road map will be out before the end of the year, and it will deal with how we will work through all the knotty issues in enabling community pharmacy to provide PrEP.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney for raising these hugely important issues, which are crucial to community pharmacy. The sector is doing more than ever before, seeing more people, providing a wider range of services and becoming more clinically advanced than ever. There are pressures in the sector, but we are injecting further funding. We have grown the workforce hugely. We will continue to build on what community pharmacists do to further improve community pharmacy across the country.
Neil O’Brien
I will pause at the point of my peroration, because there is a question.
Taiwo Owatemi
There is a question: will the Minister return to my earlier question about whether he can come to the APPG to meet key pharmacy stakeholders?
Neil O’Brien
That is a brilliantly timed question, to which the answer is yes.
Peter Aldous
This has been a very informative and helpful debate. We clearly have an enormous challenge in this country in improving access to primary care, and the key role played by the community pharmacy in addressing that challenge will be vital. We have heard about the three shortages that the industry faces, and I urge the Minister to reflect on those: the shortage of funding and finance, the shortage of staff, and the shortage of medicines.
The right hon. Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth) highlighted the impact of community pharmacy closures on deprived areas. It is clear from the maps that have been produced that the impact is disproportionate, including in some coastal communities, such as the one I represent. He also highlighted the key role that community pharmacies play in treating the long-term health conditions found in such areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, rightly showed that this issue is on its register. I looked at the registers in the Select Committee report and I look forward to the amber and red warnings turning into green notices in due course. He highlighted the importance of PrEP being available for community pharmacies—the Terrence Higgins Trust brought that to my attention—and I welcome the update that the Minister provided.
The hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) clearly emphasised the importance of a prevention-first approach. We got the first-hand knowledge that is so important in forums such as this from the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi). I was particularly struck by her emphasis on the importance of using technology and the specific problem with the manufacture of generic medicines—she made her point very well. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), reinforced the potential of the sector and what an alternative Labour Administration would do.
The Minister highlighted the whole range of work that community pharmacies can do. He touched on the closures but said that there are actually more community pharmacists now than in 2010. I just highlight, from talking to community pharmacists, that when there are closures, getting consolidation of the sector across the country, so there is an even spread and we retain community pharmacies within 20 minutes of people, is not straightforward with the current regulations. I urge the Minister and his Department to look at that.
The Minister also said there has been an 82% increase in registered pharmacists since 2010, but a lot of that increase may have been in hospitals and medical practices. The feedback that I get from community pharmacists is that they have challenges with recruitment and retention in their settings, and we need to address that. I was heartened by what the Minister said about regulatory reform; it appears that the Government are embracing that particular challenge.
Let me say, in the few seconds I have left, that this debate has served the purpose of highlighting the key role of community pharmacies and the challenges they face. I urge the Minister to continue to engage with the sector—I know he will—particularly when the extra report is produced on Tuesday.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered community pharmacies.
Grand Committee
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Healthcare: Controlled Drugs
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Butler of Brockwell
To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Sharpe of Epsom on 24 July (HL9391), when they plan to introduce legislation to enable prescribing of controlled drugs by paramedic independent prescribers, as well as other changes to the use of controlled drugs in healthcare.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for having raced from business in the Chamber in order to answer this short debate.
I start by saying that I need to declare no personal interest in the subject of the debate—my only interest is to try to do the world a bit of good. I should also declare that I have no difference of policy with the Government. The issue is this: the Government have said that, following the approval of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, they will extend the list of drugs which paramedic independent prescribers and therapeutic radiographer equivalents may prescribe and administer to patients. These drugs include morphine, morphine sulphate and four other drugs.
This process has taken a considerable time. The advisory council submitted its approval in relation to paramedics in 2019—four years ago—and in relation to radiographers in 2020, three years ago. More than two years later, on 30 September 2022—nearly a year ago—the Minister of State in the Home Office wrote to the secretary of the advisory council and said that he had asked Home Office officials to commence the process for making these regulatory changes.
My purpose today is to ask the Minister to give us a date by which this will be done. I put two Written Questions to the Home Office, which the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has courteously answered. He has confirmed that the changes are capable of being made by statutory instrument, which the Government will bring forward
“as soon as possible, but this will remain subject to Parliamentary procedure”.
What is this parliamentary procedure? I am advised that it is a statutory instrument under the negative procedure, which means that the instrument comes into law without any parliamentary procedure unless someone dissents, which in this case is effectively unthinkable. So, the statutory instrument simply has to be drafted and laid.
The delay does not seem to be parliamentary procedure but the Home Office’s order of priorities. We know that Home Office lawyers have been very busy, but it is very difficult to understand why they have not been able to find time for this very simple instrument. I understand that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs approved the wording as long ago as 2019—four years ago. Home Office lawyers could simply take it out of their drawer. Equivalent amendments were required with respect to physiotherapists and podiatrists when these groups were given prescribing rights 10 years ago. They were made by the Home Office in a little over 18 months. Today, by comparison, paramedic independent prescribers have been waiting over five years for the necessary amendments to be made, and therapeutic radiographers have been held in limbo since April 2016—over seven years.
I said at the outset that I had no personal interest to declare, but that is not quite true. We all have a personal interest in this issue. I could describe to your Lordships a case study in which, in the absence of the changes we are discussing today, an advanced paramedic practitioner could not prescribe oral morphine to deal with an acute onset of pain without the patient having to have a further appointment with a GP, prescribing nurse or pharmacist. Following this statutory instrument, that paramedic would be able to prescribe oral morphine for the continuing treatment of pain. If I may make this personal, I do not welcome the prospect some time in the future of unnecessarily lying in acute pain which could be relieved by this simple statutory instrument. Nor do I want others to have to do so.
The statutory instrument offers a double whammy. It will both remove some unnecessary pressure on general practitioners, which the Government and all of us must surely welcome, and make available more immediate treatment for patients. If the Department of Health were responsible for this statutory instrument, I wonder whether it would have been made with more dispatch.
I am too long in the tooth to be fobbed off by statements saying that the Government will make the statutory instrument
“as soon as possible, but this will remain subject to Parliamentary procedure”.
I repeat that it is simple for the Home Office to make and lay this statutory instrument. It effectively requires no parliamentary procedure whatever. I hope the Minister will be able to clearly answer my question and say that the statutory instrument will be made forthwith, I hope by the end of the current Session.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell. I thank him for initiating this important debate. Like him, I hope it will result in the Government bringing in much-needed legislation to allow advanced paramedic practitioners to prescribe some of the controlled drugs in Schedules 2 to 5. I will speak briefly in support of the noble Lord. I may repeat some of what he said, but do not apologise for doing so because it is worth emphasising.
I thank the College of Paramedics and the House of Lords Library for their detailed, informative briefing on allowing paramedics to prescribe controlled medicines. I recognise the need to look at expanding prescribing by other health professionals, such as radiographers, as have been mentioned, and widening the list of drugs that can be prescribed by them. However, I shall confine my comments today to paramedics.
There is a misconception that highly trained, efficient paramedics work only in ambulances and are not allowed to prescribe and administer medicines, including some controlled drugs. Paramedics are now deployed in a whole range of healthcare settings, from emergency departments to GP practices, out-of-hours services and general and specialised wards. Some 25% of paramedics now work in wider healthcare settings. They are a versatile, experienced and valuable part of the healthcare system. There are more than 1,500 advanced paramedic practitioners, and the workforce plan recently published by the Government has the ambition to expand this workforce considerably in future.
Once qualified as an independent prescriber, a paramedic can prescribe any drugs, except controlled drugs such as morphine sulphate, as has been mentioned, Diazepam, Midazolam and codeine phosphate. Qualified paramedics can and do work independently in making the correct diagnosis. If the treatment involves giving controlled medicines, she or he has to seek assistance from another prescribing healthcare professional. This results in delay in care, disturbs the work of both professionals and increases the risk to patient safety.
I will give some real examples—the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, already gave one such. A young man, having fallen off his bike, is brought to the emergency department by ambulance. He is in considerable pain and, after initial tests, the advanced paramedic practitioner makes a correct diagnosis of a closed tibia and fibula fracture. The advanced practitioner knows what he has to do next but is unable to prescribe morphine to alleviate the pain and has to seek assistance, disturbing the work of other clinicians, who have to leave the patient they may have been looking after to help the paramedic. This delays treatment and creates possible patient safety issues.
Another such example is a young woman, a known epileptic, who is brought by ambulance having had seizures at home. The practitioner is unable to prescribe prescribed drugs such as intravenous lorazepam to control the young woman’s epileptic seizures.
Another example is a young man with a shoulder injury who is brought in by ambulance. The paramedic makes a correct diagnosis of a dislocated shoulder and is competent to treat the patient. However, before she or he can perform the manipulation of the shoulder, they must seek the advice and assistance of another health professional to administer a mild anaesthetic such as midazolam. Being unable to prescribe and having to seek assistance means that the treatment is delayed and the young man remains in pain; this risks the dislocation causing more shoulder damage, with possible long-term effects.
Legislation, possibly introduced as a statutory instrument, as already mentioned, is urgently needed to allow highly trained, experienced advanced paramedics to prescribe some controlled medicines. Such legislation is a long time in coming. The concept of paramedics prescribing was consulted on in 2015. As the noble Lord, Lord Butler, mentioned, in 2018 legislation to approve the concept was accepted. In October 2019, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs approved the list of drugs that advanced paramedics could prescribe, which was also approved by the MHRA. Apparently, a letter was sent to the Home Office in 2019, so we have been waiting since then for the Home Office to approve and bring in the legislation.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, is sympathetic to the proposals from the correspondence I have seen which others have had with him. I hope he will surprise us when he responds by telling us when the legislation will be brought forward—I hope before 7 November or soon after. Whenever it is, I cannot imagine that Parliament will do anything other than promptly approve it.
Once paramedics are able to prescribe some of the medicines in the controlled list of drugs, patients will benefit from prompt treatment, and it will free up the time of other clinicians and improve patient safety. If there is no action from the Home Office, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, will continue to badger the Government on a regular basis. He will have my support.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, I too support my noble friend, and I am grateful to him for this chance to address a related subject of great concern: the highly damaging effects of the use of certain drugs prescribed in good faith. Older colleagues may recall that some years ago a member of my family had a bitter experience with benzodiazepine and sudden withdrawal from it at her doctor’s request. I introduced various debates and asked various questions at that time. I therefore declare my interest as a founder member of the Prescribed Drug Dependence—PDD—All-Party Parliamentary Group, which is soon to be renamed the “Beyond Pills” APPG. Most of the intellectual backup for the all-party group comes from the Council for Evidence-based Psychiatry, or CEP UK, which has found that the prescription of antidepressants and other drugs is still increasing rapidly year by year.
The Pharmaceutical Journal reported in July that the number of antidepressants prescribed in England rose by 5.1% in 2021-22, compared with the previous year, which was the sixth annual increase in a row. Over the same period, the number of antidepressant items prescribed increased by 34.8%, rising to 83.4 million items in 2021-22. According to Public Health England, as many as one in four adults in England over 18 are being prescribed benzos, Z-drugs, opioids or some form of antidepressant.
In 2019, following a lot of pressure from the APPG, Public Health England published a comprehensive evidence review of dependence-forming drugs. This showed that 26% of the adult population in England was prescribed a dependence-forming drug in the previous year. In its earlier review of data, PHE found that more people were being prescribed medicines inappropriately, and often for longer than good practice guidance recommended.
A recent BBC “Panorama” programme, I think in June, showed that there are still almost no NHS services to support patients who have been harmed by taking drugs as prescribed by their doctor. The programme detailed how patients experiencing severe and prolonged withdrawal symptoms have resorted to online peer groups for validation, support and safe drug tapering advice. My noble friend knows the inner processes of government from over many years, and he will have a lot more patience than me with the inability of officials to act on agreed principles. We have heard his frustration, and we can all easily sympathise with it. When it comes to helping those suffering from withdrawal, at least two promised policies involving a helpline and the support of the voluntary sector have been, if not shelved, then placed firmly on the shelf.
In response to the 2019 PHE review, NHS England published its framework for action, Optimising personalised care for adults prescribed medicines associated with dependence or withdrawal symptoms. This was published in March and was intended to encourage integrated care boards to develop services. While that has been widely welcomed as a further positive step by government, a recent FOI revealed that only 6% of the ICBs are considering taking any action on the framework. The same PHE review also recommended that a national helpline to support people going through intense withdrawal from prescribed drugs should be set up in partnership with those with relevant experience—in other words, something very practical. At a time when issues of patient safety are very much in the public mind, it is disappointing that the DHSC has recently confirmed that it cannot find the £2 million necessary to set up this lifeline, which is urgently needed until local services start to become available.
There are a number of small voluntary organisations scattered across the country—in Camden, north Wales, Bristol, for instance—providing a vital service to patients. But their relations with the NHS are tenuous. As the BBC reported again this morning, many are so frail that without funding, some, such as the Bristol Tranquilliser Project, have ceased or are ceasing to operate. In another survey of 500 patients, 92% said that they were not told about withdrawal effects when they were first prescribed antidepressants. This seems unimaginable. Surely, this is a service much too valuable to public health to be allowed to collapse. I have seen the rather negative letter from the DHSC, dated 3 August. This was a key recommendation of the review. When will it be reconsidered?
On the specific Question and paramedics, I draw attention to the NICE guidelines concerning safe prescribing and withdrawal management for medicines associated with dependence. Will paramedics who are able to prescribe be required to comply with guideline NG215, entitled Medicines Associated with Dependence or Withdrawal Symptoms: Safe Prescribing and Withdrawal Management for Adults? The practicalities associated with following such guidelines in an emergency situation, such as my noble friend described, need to be assessed and specific provision made for informed consent and follow-up by a GP to put in place NICE’s recommended management plan for such drugs.
Secondly, patients who have had difficulty withdrawing from dependence-forming medications frequently choose not to take such drugs in future. Would the Minister agree that paramedics need to take account of that? They must be able to check records for any history of discontinuation or protracted withdrawal syndrome, or advanced decisions made about the future administration of those medicines.
Following the PHE review, the all-party group is aware of efforts by NHSE to create an internal information hub on drugs associated with dependence, agreed in principle to be held on the NHS Specialist Pharmacy Service website. Can the Minister also confirm that paramedics will be signposted to this information in the event of any questions?
As I said, I warmly congratulate my noble friend. He has made a point and created a scene of what might happen to any of us. I hope the Minister will give him a really solid reply.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, for pressing this issue for some time now, not just in this debate but in previous Questions, because it is frustrating when a policy decision has been taken that will bring benefits to people but its implementation is held up for months or even years for want of a technical change to regulation. It seems entirely misplaced that we have an important policy decision yet, as the noble Lord described very accurately, something quite trivial—drafting an instrument and getting it before us—is holding up that change.
It might be helpful to put this change into the wider health context to understand the weight of that frustration and why it is ringing alarm bells. This specific change to prescribing paramedics is in a context of changes to prescribing rules more generally. There is a recognition among policymakers of all parties and none, and among the health and care professional community, that there is a need for innovation in working practices, especially those practices around prescribing. That is essential if we are to meet the demand for health services, even if we keep putting more resources in. Resources on their own will not provide the answer; it is the kind of innovation where we use a broader group of healthcare and allied professionals to deliver services that will enable us to meet that growing demand. Prescribing is one of the key areas where innovation is happening and cost-benefit analyses are being constructed for potential changes to the prescribing model.
On the benefits side, these accrue to individual patients, who can have easier access to the drugs they need. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, elegantly set out the kind of situations in which an individual patient would certainly benefit from the change being considered—the paramedic being able to prescribe controlled drugs. However, we all will indirectly benefit if healthcare professionals can work in the most efficient way and professional A does not have to ask professional B to take time out to prescribe the drug that professional A could have prescribed themselves. The whole system benefits with that increased efficiency, as well as the individual who is immediately at risk.
There are of course some potential risks to individuals and society from any of these changes. Again, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, set out for us the kind of problems that can occur if drugs are prescribed inappropriately. We need to bear that in mind and that is why, with any of these changes, the analysis should look at those risks and the things that need to be put in place to manage and mitigate them. That is precisely what has happened here, with the report we had as far back as 2019 from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, and other work that has taken place. People have looked at the benefits and risks of the change and concluded that the benefits significantly outweigh the risks, and therefore that we should proceed. That process has happened as it should, by looking at things within the full context. Now all we need is that enabling regulation.
I hope the Minister is going to explain to us today, first, why it has taken so long and why we are forced, in a sense, to bring him here to answer rather than it having just appeared on the Order Paper at an earlier date; and, secondly, whether he can point to a resolution in the near future. The noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, used the word “forthwith”, which was a novel take on this. I have heard that things will happen in due course or shortly. These are all terms of art, rather than precise dates, in government-speak. Forthwith is one that I like, as it conveys even more of a sense of urgency, but the noble Lord was right that better than any of these formulations would be a date. Having “12 October” is better than “shortly” or “soon” or any such formulation. I hope the Minister will be able to offer us a date.
I would also like to raise with the Minister a specific question, which I hope he can touch on in his remarks. Have the Government given any consideration to the impact on healthcare professionals of making nitrous oxide a class C controlled substance, which the Government are doing through a statutory instrument that I think will come before us next Tuesday? Again, it is interesting to note that the Government managed to produce that instrument in double-quick time, even though it goes against the advice of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, while here we have one which is aligned with that council’s advice but has taken much longer. The noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, may have put his finger on it when he said that if this regulation was owned by DHSC it would have proceeded much faster, because if the change in regulating controlled substances is one the Home Office wants for its own policy agenda, it seems to be able to do that much more quickly than if it is being asked to assist the Department of Health. That is a shame, in what is supposed to be an era of joined- up government.
I have looked at the Explanatory Memorandum for the instrument that will be debated next week. It says that the impact for the public sector of this classification relates only to law enforcement and criminal justice, with no effect on anyone else. I hope that is true and that the Government have done all the work needed to ensure that healthcare professionals and those in allied professions who use nitrous oxide quite widely will not experience any change to their practices, or their ability to use nitrous oxide, post the reclassification. However, the fact that we are debating this today around other class C controlled substances, such as diazepam, suggests to me that there is some complexity. When I read some of the background notes, I understood that there are NICE guidelines and specific exemptions, so it is a very complex world where health service regulation and Home Office regulation come together.
As I say, I hope that the Home Office has done its homework and that when we classify nitrous oxide as a class C controlled substance, the Minister will be able to assure us that no health professional or allied professional needs to worry about that and that there will be no negative implications. If not, and if changes will be required pursuant to that reclassification, I hope he can indicate that those are in hand and nitrous oxide will not suddenly fall into this area, with some professionals being unable to prescribe it as and when they need to, as with the other substances we are talking about. I hope the Minister will have answers to this, as well as that crucial answer of a date when the changes that were already agreed so long ago might come into force.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I too would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, for giving us the opportunity to air what we should not have to air, which is the need for the legislation for this important change. I would also like to pay tribute to his elegant tenacity on the subject, which is important in improving the provision of health care. The Government are failing to do that because they have not brought forward the necessary legislation. The noble Lord also set out clearly the background to what is a very long and winding road over many years which brings us to a position I am sure the Minister would rather not be in. It is a somewhat uncomfortable position, because it is so obvious that this should be done; all the agreements and approvals are in place, and yet we wait.
I am glad that the Minister has confirmed on a number of occasions that legislation will be brought forward as soon as possible and that this could be dealt with by statutory instrument. When it does come before us again, I hope that what the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, said about the need to confirm that full consideration has been given to patient safety will be taken into account. The noble Earl helpfully flagged up a number of points, which I would regard as advanced warning to the Minister.
I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Allan, that if this matter was sitting with the Department of Health and Social Care it would have been dealt with—I feel sure of that. The Minister shakes his head, and I am sure we will have an explanation later as to why that is not the case, but that is the feeling in the room, and for good reason. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, explained, paramedics do not just work in ambulances, and what they need is the tools to do the job that is before them.
NHS England also states that advanced paramedics who have undergone additional master’s level training are increasingly taking on roles in varied critical settings. As the noble Lord said, these include GP practices, minor injuries units, urgent care centres and A&E, and they are prescribing in such settings. This aligns with the NHS long-term plan’s emphasis on multi-disciplinary care, which includes the aim to relieve pressure in accident and emergency units and to provide immediate care for people wherever they are. To have this change in legislation would be a considerable contribution to that.
Why do we need to go down this road? It is worth reiterating some of the points that have been made. I too was grateful to the Lords Library for the briefing it provided and was interested to read the 2021 study in the British Paramedic Journal. It reported that paramedics who participated in this study, and who had
“longer experience in primary care, out-of-hours or house calls or with an extended remit to provide end-of-life or palliative care”,
described not being able to prescribe controlled drugs as a “limitation”. I am sure that the Minister, who is a Home Office Minister, has heard many debates in the Chamber in which his ministerial colleague in the Department of Health and Social Care was pressed on why we cannot see change to existing staff practices in order to provide better healthcare. Indeed, the NHS workforce plan, which we have long called for and which has finally appeared—with its limitations—will be successful only if the question of how people can do their jobs is looked at. Here is an opportunity to equip people to do their job.
In answering a Written Question put to the Department of Health and Social Care in December last year, the noble Lord, Lord Markham, described who could prescribe beyond doctors and dentists. He gave a list of professions, referred to as non-medical prescribers in this case, and they included physiotherapists, therapeutic radiographers and so on. Interestingly, the Care Quality Commission lists the great benefits in this extension to non-medical prescribers, so there is a lesson to be learned here. The CQC talks about the enablement of “quicker access … to medicines” for patients, making the
“best use of the range of skills of healthcare professionals”,
and addressing “demand and workforce issues”. I say to the Minister: these are all things we have been pressing for in the Chamber, and which I think Ministers would also like to see. Here we have an opportunity to get on and meet that requirement.
I have a few questions for the Minister. As we have discussed, experienced paramedics have had prescribing powers since 2018. What assessment have the Government made of the success of this, and what can be learned from implementing the extension? Crucially, can the Minister tell us how much discussion has been had on this matter with the Department of Health and Social Care, as it seems to have fallen between the two departments? How many paramedics currently hold independent prescribing powers? Do the Government have any plans to encourage more paramedics to access prescribing training? What consultation have the Government undertaken, or will they undertake, on how to roll out these changes?
In a study on the introduction of prescribing for paramedics, those who had begun prescribing expressed concern about confusion in multidisciplinary settings about the different prescribing powers that colleagues possessed. What work can the Government and the NHS do to ensure clarity throughout the health service so that current powers and the new powers, when they are introduced, are clear to all clinical colleagues?
As the Minister knows, there is one main thing we would like to hear: the date when this matter will finally be dealt with. I hope he can offer us that today, with clarity, and that he will also explain to noble Lords present and the many people outside who are waiting for his response why there has been this delay. I look forward to his response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, first, I offer my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Butler, for securing this debate. If I may say, I hope that no noble Lords, including the noble Lord, ever have personal need on this particular subject. I note his points on the simplicity of making this statutory instrument and the delay in legislating, and I shall come back to that in a moment.
I want to start by stressing at the outset, as the noble Lord and others noted, that the Government recognise the importance of this issue and the value that independent prescribing by front-line health professionals, such as paramedics, brings to the National Health Service. Doctors and vets are generally able to prescribe medicines containing controlled drugs, with accompanying rights to administer and direct others to administer them. In addition, other healthcare professionals can undergo specialist training to prescribe, supply and administer controlled drugs. Paramedic independent prescribers are therefore distinct from other paramedics and will be able to prescribe medicines specified in the legislation.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for going into some detail in this regard, because it gives me an opportunity to expand the definition of “advanced paramedics”, and perhaps add some colour. The number is expected to increase in line with the recommendations of the new long-term workforce plan, as referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron. This change in legislation supports that development. As has been noted, that will benefit both the patient and the wider healthcare systems.
All paramedics are required by law to register with the Health and Care Professions Council. In answer to the noble Baroness’s question, according to its register, as of March, there are 1,708 paramedic independent prescribers and 219 therapeutic radiographer independent prescribers in the UK. Paramedic independent prescribers are utilised in a wide range of settings, which can include, but are not limited to, things like emergency departments—same-day emergency care, air ambulances, GP surgeries, out-of-hours services, walk-in centres, community palliative care teams, virtual wards and hospital-at-home services, hospices and so on, as well as on general and specialised wards.
Independent prescribing supports an expectation that patients should be cared for and treated by the most appropriate healthcare professional to meet their needs where it is safe and appropriate. The main purpose of paramedic independent prescribers is to allow those working at an advanced level of practice to be able to independently assess, diagnose and treat patients in a single episode of care, rather than refer them on to another healthcare professional. This is in line with the example that the noble Lord provides, in that, under this new legislation, a patient with an acute onset of pain could be prescribed oral morphine by a paramedic independent prescriber rather than being referred on to a GP or otherwise.
With all that in mind, the Government are wholly supportive of the proposals to enable prescribing of the five specified controlled drugs by paramedic independent prescribers, which is why we accepted the recommendations of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, or ACMD, last year. We intend to legislate to make this change alongside other changes relating to the use of controlled drugs in healthcare by podiatrists, therapeutic radiographer independent prescribers, and those acting under patient group directions. As the noble Lord points out, the changes can be achieved by a negative Statutory Instrument, and we intend to bring forward this legislation by the end of the year. I have become a master of obfuscation while doing this job, but there is no need in this case.
The prescribing and supply of medicines is a policy lead for Ministers at the Department of Health and Social Care, as has been noted, and it is governed by medicines legislation. In the present case, the drugs involved are controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, which is the responsibility of the Home Office. The 1971 Act makes specified activities in respect of controlled drugs generally unlawful. But because many controlled drugs have legitimate uses in healthcare, the 1971 Act enables Ministers to provide exemptions that are set out in the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001.
Under the 1971 Act, Ministers are required to consult the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, an independent scientific advisory body, before making changes to drugs legislation. Therefore, there are two departments, the Home Office and the Department of Health, working together on issues connected to controlled drugs in healthcare, taking advice from the ACMD and through consultation. The ACMD provided advice to Ministers regarding the prescribing of controlled drugs by paramedics, as has been noted, in October 2019. The Home Office and the DHSC worked together to consider this advice. After the report was published, the Government were required to focus on addressing the threat of Covid-19, as I am sure noble Lords will understand. Alongside other pressures on healthcare, the topic of independent prescribing was not prioritised. As noble Lords will be aware, the Government responded, accepting the ACMD recommendations in September 2022.
I assure your Lordships that Home Office and DHSC officials are working on the necessary amendments to the legislation, and we intend to introduce them by the end of the year. Where I referred to parliamentary procedure in the letter mentioned by the noble Lord, I am afraid that that is just standard language; there is no particular attempt to confuse or, to use my earlier word, obfuscate. We are carefully working through the legal drafting to ensure that each of the professions will have clarity on their new rights and responsibilities so that they can confidently carry out their duties. These include such details as whether the professional can direct others to administer the specified controlled drugs; whether the professional can compound the drugs; and whether they are obliged to record information about their prescribing and, when required, furnish information about it.
In addition, technical amendments need to be made to ensure that the measures are effective: for example, to ensure that patients supplied with controlled drugs in accordance with a prescription from the professional are in lawful possession, and to ensure that interdependencies between the 2001 regulations and those for which the DHSC are responsible under medicines legislation are properly aligned.
In his speech, the noble Lord described these changes as simple. Although the amendments to be made may seem simple, the complexity of the 2001 regulations should not be underestimated. My officials tried to explain them to me the other day and they will cheerfully attest to the fact that I looked very confused for a very long time. Officials from the Home Office and the DHSC have worked alongside lawyers to draft these regulations over several months to ensure that they are accurate and aligned with medicines legislation. I hope it is clear that the Government understand the imperative of this work and are prioritising the legislation accordingly.
To answer a few specific questions, the noble Lord, Lord Hallam, asked whether the forthcoming ban on nitrous oxide will have any impact on healthcare. I can assure him that it will remain available in healthcare as a Schedule 5 drug, and that can also be achieved by a negative statutory instrument. I suspect that we may return to that next week.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, asked me about patient safety in prescribing. Prescribing policy is a matter for the DHSC, but I will make sure that he gets a detailed response on that subject. I can say that benzodiazepines—forgive my pronunciation—are controlled under drugs legislation, with three novel benzos being added in 2021. I hope that he does not intervene on me to ask for clarification because I am not sure that I will be in a position to provide much.
The noble Earl and the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, asked about the safety of prescribing. The ACMD advised that prescribers will have comprehensive training, and existing auditing and sanctions processes will manage inappropriate prescribing, should it occur.
In closing, I thank Members for all their contributions to today’s discussion, which has been both instructive and insightful. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Butler, for securing the debate. He is absolutely right to highlight this important topic. I also thank Mr Johnny Hood, senior advanced clinical practitioner, who wrote to both the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and me. I rudely did not reply to his letter, but I hope he is paying attention to this debate. I thank him for his letter, which I read and noted.
I have heard what has been said and I hope I have provided some clarity and reassurance around the current position. As I have set out, we fully recognise the significance of this issue and work is at an advanced stage to address it as soon as possible by the end of this year.
Horseracing and Bloodstock Industries
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Herbert of South Downs
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to support the horseracing and bloodstock industries.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity. I declare a minor interest in owning a tiny fraction of an infuriatingly inconsistent horse of moderate ability. However, my real interest is as a lover of the sport of kings, and I know that my passion is shared by millions of others. Racing is the country’s second-largest sport—only football is bigger. It welcomes 5 million racegoers annually to 59 racecourses across England, Scotland and Wales and the industry generates £4.1 billion a year for the UK economy, supporting 80,000 jobs in the rural economy. This is not just a pastime. It is really important to the country. I sometimes wonder whether racing receives the political attention such a major sport and industry deserves.
Despite its size and prestige, there is much to be concerned about for the future of racing in the UK today. It is a global sport and must be competitive to attract owners, runners, racegoers and betters. Yet prize money levels in British racing are far lower than in rival countries. The average per race in Britain is £16,000; in Ireland it is £22,000, in France £24,000, in Japan £53,000 and in Hong Kong £155,000. This already large gap is widening fast. The clear and present danger is that there will be an exodus of equine talent from our country and horses running in other countries where prize money is higher. That is happening already. Stallions are already going abroad rather than staying here. Horses are not being kept in training here. There is a worrying mismatch between the reputation of British racing as the best in the world and its financing, which is among the worst. This gap is simply unsustainable.
The Government say that the levy is not the only source of funding for racing, representing just 6% of racing’s total income last year whereas owners and breeders contribute nearly two-thirds between them. That is true, but owners and breeders rely on the prize money, which is provided by the levy, so the level of the levy is a key concern for the future of racing. It is a vital source of income for the sport, delivering £80 million to £100 million of funding annually. However, that is way short of the £133 million annual target agreed by the Government in 2017. The current level has simply not been enough to keep pace with inflation or growing costs in the industry.
To take a step back, racing receives a return of less than 3% from the more than £13 billion bet every year by punters in the UK. That is a tiny percentage, the lowest of any major racing nation. Ireland’s return is 8.4%; even Australia’s 3.4%, not much above our current yield, would mean a £174 million levy yield going to the UK industry, far higher than it is currently. The centralised funding models in places such as Japan and Hong Kong lead to much higher returns still to racing, such as 16.6% in Japan. We do not have such models. Instead, we have profitable betting companies, which is why the levy is so important.
I welcome the Government’s review of the levy because three key reforms are urgently needed. First, the rate must be increased, as I think all sides now recognise. Secondly, it should be linked to inflation to ensure that it maintains its value and to provide certainty. Thirdly, we must close the loophole so that the levy applies to all bets by British customers, including on international races, which is not how it works at the moment. In fact, Britain is the only major jurisdiction not capturing domestic betters betting on international racing. That has not always been the case, as the levy captured British betting on international racing prior to 2004. This is a very important gap to plug, because a fifth of the money bet by British punters is staked on races abroad, so the industry is simply losing a lot of money that it would have accrued before.
However, there is a further risk to the financing of racing that is not external. I am afraid that it comes from government itself. To deal with problem gamblers, the Government and the Gambling Commission are proposing affordability checks on remote betters. The Government themselves say that this will impact on racing’s finances but that the checks will be minimal. However, the industry calculates a far worse impact than the Government suggest: an 11% reduction in levy income and a consequent loss of value to media rights deals, reducing funding by 15%. The overall effect could see racing lose millions of pounds a year. The industry can ill afford this at the moment.
I am afraid it is no good to say that the checks will be frictionless, because the technology to deliver frictionless checks does not exist at the moment. Checks every six months and no thresholds, which are already far too low, will effectively mean onerous checks for everyone. That is a clumsy, one-size-fits-all approach that will bludgeon punters.
We know how these institutions will apply these rules—with a sledgehammer. Just look at how the banks have applied the politically exposed persons regulations. It is not just the banks. In July, I received an email from Bet365, with which I have an account, which said:
“Dear Sir Herbert … we have identified that you are a politically exposed person”.
It went on to demand that I identify the source of funds through bank statements, proof of annual income and so on and so forth. Those are immensely onerous requirements, yet I can assure noble Lords that the sums I was betting were tiny: a few pounds a year. These checks were completely disproportionate, so we know how the betting companies will apply any rules. We have a good idea of how they would apply affordability checks. We are already seeing a reduction in betting turnover as bookmakers begin their own checks and high-profile betters say that they will quit.
This reform is doubtless well intentioned but it will not work in practice because it will simply drive punters to the unregulated black market. I am afraid that the Gambling Commission is in complete denial about that. However, I also think that these checks are wrong in principle. People should be allowed to spend their money in ways that they judge is right for them. Would we seriously propose affordability checks for alcohol or tobacco? We might take measures to deal with problem drinking and problem smoking; we might tax these products and so on, but would we actually say to people that if they cannot afford them we will not allow them to purchase them? It is an extraordinary suggestion.
For the state to decide whether someone may place a bet based on their job title or postcode is discriminatory. Actually, I would argue that it would be an outrageous abuse of state power. If there is an issue with problem gambling, affordability checks are an unwise and blunt instrument that will not deal with the issue. I suggest the Government drop these checks and focus instead on measures that are targeted on those most at risk: the problem gamblers.
There is a very important point here: there is no point in increasing the levy, if the Government finally decide to do that, which would be very welcome, only for any gain or even part of it to be cancelled by another government measure. That would be to give with one hand and take with the other, and racing would be the loser.
Finally, I will raise the issue of the proposed solar farm at Newmarket—2,500 acres of solar panels, the largest in the country. The visual impact from the Limekilns training grounds in Newmarket would be appalling. I should say that I live five miles from the centre of Newmarket but in completely the opposite direction. I would not be personally impacted by this solar farm. I have no vested or private interest in opposing it, but Newmarket does.
Newmarket is the centre of flat-racing in not just the UK but the world—it is known as its headquarters. Historically, the rail tunnel was put under the gallops. The gallops were not dug up in the war for food; special planning protection was given to Newmarket. That has protected it as the international centre of flat-racing, and we cannot be casual about losing these protections or that special status.
The 77 acres of batteries are just a device to obtain planning permission. I believe that solar panels should be on the roofs of public buildings, not on high-grade agricultural land. This proposal is opposed by all local councils, as well as the racing community. I appreciate that there is a public inquiry on it and that Ministers are taking a quasi-judicial decision, but I urge them to reject the proposal if they possibly can.
In conclusion, responding to a similar debate initiated last year by my noble friend Lord Risby, the then Minister said:
“The Government remain committed to supporting British horseracing and related businesses, which are vital to the lifeblood of the rural economy”.—[Official Report, 17/11/22; col. GC 232.]
The Government must mean what they say. If they are committed to supporting racing, they cannot bring in damaging and pointless affordability checks, knowing that the sport’s finances will be shredded. If they are committed to supporting racing, they cannot allow the erosion of our global competitiveness when a key solution—increasing and reforming the levy—lies in their hands. If they are committed to supporting racing, they cannot just ignore the concerns of the global centre of the sport and allow a development which would go against centuries of protection. I am grateful to the Government for acknowledging the importance of racing; their actions must now match their words.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Herbert for securing this debate and introducing it so comprehensively, such that I suspect I will not say anything that he has not already said—with one exception, as I declare my interests, which I am afraid are slightly longer than his. I am a steward, which really means a director, of the Jockey Club; I totted up that I have been a racehorse owner for more than 30 years, which makes me feel very old; and I am a 20-years’retired amateur steeplechase jockey. As we will discuss the levy, I should also declare that my grandfather was the first chair of the Levy Board, in 1961.
Racing is definitely in my heart, soul and blood. It has given me some of the best days of my life—I was encouraged to add the words “some of” into that sentence by my husband last night. When I have a bad day at work, I tend to close my eyes and remember how it felt to land over Becher’s Brook and how it felt to lead in the winner of the Cheltenham Gold Cup, and I suddenly feel better.
Although I have been phenomenally lucky in racing, I am not alone. As my noble friend said, racing is the second-largest sport in the UK, with over 5 million racegoers each year. It is internationally renowned, hosting some of the most prestigious races in the world, and underpinned by world-class talent, human and equine—not me, unfortunately. It has strong, respected and genuinely trusted governance, and it contributes more than £4 billion and 80,000 jobs to the economy. My noble friend listed all those facts. We also host some of the most memorable spectacles of the year in British racing. It is where Heads of State, captains of industry and everyday punters are all fans together.
My first question for my noble friend the Minister is this: does he agree that British racing is a substantial asset to this country and that he and the Government genuinely want to see British racing prosper? If so, as my noble friend Lord Herbert just asked, what have they done, or are they doing, to ensure that that is the case? That is the fundamental question that we are debating today.
As my noble friend set out—I will not repeat all the statistics—British racing’s international competitiveness is under serious threat. Our prize money is lower and good horses are increasingly leaving the UK. The number of higher-rated horses leaving doubled from 2021 to 2022. It is not sustainable for our equine talent to depart these shores. The percentage of top-rated, grade 1 races that the UK holds is dropping. In 2017, the UK held 24% of grade 1 races; four years later, in 2021, it was 17%. That is a 30% drop. The reality is that the rest of the world is copying and learning from us, but they are much more financially resilient, which is a real problem. Owners can win more money abroad, increasingly win better races abroad and sell their horses for more by sending them abroad. This is a really vicious, slippery slope of decline for something that I hope we would all agree is a great British asset.
There is much that UK racing can do itself. I am not making the case that this is only the Government’s problem. I would argue that UK racing needs to genuinely work together. I try to explain to my friends who are not keen racing fans but love other sports like this: imagine if, in tennis, the tennis ball, racket, court, net, player and team support were all separately represented in discussions about the funding of the sport—that is racing. For the horses, trainers, breeders, jockeys and fans, racing does not find it inherently easy to work together. The sport needs to get better at doing that itself, and I say that as a member of the sport.
The sport also needs to get better at appealing to younger, more diverse audiences. The sport needs to continue investing in equine welfare and in supporting responsible gambling and responsible drinking, and the sport must create events and entertainment that are fitting for the modern world and genuinely inclusive entertainment for all. I am not for a moment suggesting that racing cannot do some of that itself—it needs to—but there is also a really important role for government, and arguably there has always been.
For millennia, people have enjoyed racing horses and betting on which horse will win. For a very long time the British Government have been firmly on the pitch—or on the turf—playing a role as a regulator: in 1961, with the creation of the Levy Board as an arm’s-length body of what is now DCMS, and through the Gaming Act 1968, which brought the Government on to the pitch for gambling regulation. I know that it is hugely tempting, and I worry that we might hear it today, that the Government always would like racing and bookmakers to come to an agreement together, on their own, without the Government. I think every Secretary of State has always said that, but the reality is that we have needed the Levy Board and gambling regulation precisely because of the many conflicting interests in this sport, including the need to protect the vulnerable and to make sure that it is a fair and equitable, regulated sector. That is a role for government, and we need government to step up and act.
My noble friend the Minister has set out the two main areas, and I will simply reiterate them. The first is the levy. Despite prize money being the lowest of the major racing nations, the amount of money placed on horseracing betting makes it actually the second-largest market in the world—second only to Hong Kong. As my noble friend has said, only 2.8% of money bet on racing comes back into racing, compared to 16.6% in Japan, which is the high mark. Even just across the channel, in Ireland, it is 8.4%. We are at a structural disadvantage. What are the Government going to do to increase the rate bookmakers pay into British racing? That is their job description. That is what the levy does—it is an arm’s-length body of DCMS. What are the Government going to do to ensure that the levy is reformed to deliver a better, fairer return into racing?
There are a number of options on the table. My noble friend has described the obvious one, which is expanding the levy to British people betting on overseas racing. We created a depressingly British disadvantage, where, if I am Irish and I want to bet on a British race, Irish racing benefits—the Irish capture some of that betting revenue—whereas if I am British and I want to bet on Irish racing, nothing comes into the British coffers. It is not right. There is international precedent; we are the only racing jurisdiction that does not do this—and we used to. I really want to understand why we cannot do that. I know the Government will want to say that racing and the bookmakers should be able to sort this out, but they have not, for millennia. We need the Government on the pitch as the referee to drive this forward.
I will not dwell further on the levy, as I would like to take my remaining minute or so to talk about affordability checks. Problem gambling is a really serious problem. I have spent the last five years of my life, heart and soul, working in the NHS. We need to make sure that we are genuinely protecting the most vulnerable, but I really do not understand why checking whether everyone who wants to spend £125 a month on betting is the way to protect the problem gamblers.
I do not understand why the Gambling Commission refuses to acknowledge that there is and will be an ever larger black market. Also, by my calculations, £125 is the same as buying a family night out at McDonald’s once a week. Would we really challenge people to prove that they could afford to take their family to McDonald’s once a week? That is what we are proposing with the affordability rules, and it is not right.
Many big racehorse owners are being asked, like my noble friend, to prove that they can pay to bet. Several have publicly announced that they will leave the sport. We are shooting ourselves in the foot. This is a national asset that ought to drive economic growth in the country, bring people into the UK and give us joy.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs for raising this important debate. In around 200 AD, it was Roman soldiers in Britain who organised the first horseracing competitions. The sport continued to increase in popularity and, by the 10th century, famous racehorses were widely given as gifts for royalty. In the 1500s, breeding laws were set by Henry VIII, possibly when he was sitting in Cloister Court, just a few minutes away from where we are right now, and rules became standardised. James I visited Newmarket in 1605, acknowledged as the home of racing. In 1711, Queen Anne was out riding and discovered the beautiful terrain of Ascot. Her magical find is celebrated to this day with the Queen Anne Stakes, the opening race of Royal Ascot Week. The St Leger Stakes was first run in 1776, the Epsom Oaks in 1779. In more recent times, racing was one of Her late Majesty’s greatest passions, with her winning more than 1,800 races and overseeing the royal stud on the Sandringham estate.
British racing leads the sport on an international level, and events such as Royal Ascot attract competitors and spectators from all around the world. British horseracing is a treasured institution. It is part of our national identity and has been enjoyed by many for over a thousand years. But this is so much more important than just supporting a tradition. While racing is referred to as the sport of kings, that is entirely misleading because racing is enjoyed by adults and children alike from every different walk of life. If asked, many people would cite football as the most attended sport in the UK; they would be right, with around 15 million people enjoying Premier League matches alone in 2022. However, it might come as a surprise to some that racing is in second place, with over 5 million spectators every year enjoying a day out at the many courses we have across Scotland, Wales and England.
Racing is entertainment for the entire family. One can enjoy a picnic at the racecourse, watch the beautifully turned-out horses in the parade ring and immerse oneself in the thrill of the race with the huge excitement of your fellow spectators cheering on their favourite. You are out in the fresh air, walking around the course taking exercise. This is all-inclusive fun and human interaction away from mobile phone screens. Aside from the enjoyment for the nation, the benefits to the wider economy are significant. Racing contributes around £4 billion to gross domestic product. Our rural economies need all the help they can receive, and racing both directly and indirectly supports around 80,000 jobs. Training yards and studs needs many different skill sets in the individuals it employs, and these businesses are key to providing jobs for our future generations and giving them a great base from which to learn and grow.
We have an industry which has existed for centuries, provides an amazing day out for all, contributes £4 billion to the economy and supports around 80,000 people, but it is not without its challenges. For owners and trainers in the UK, it currently makes sense to race overseas. Horses are coming out of training in the UK and going straight to the Middle East. The industry is facing a talent drain, which we must try to stem. It is an alarming statistic that in 2022, the number of higher-rated horses being exported from the UK doubled versus the previous year.
The reason for this, as we have already heard, is prize money. Our trainers rely heavily on that money as a key source of income, which in turn supports rural economies. Our owners know that if their horses race overseas, it can materially help with running costs. Prize money in Japan is around five times more than that in the UK; in the United States, it is around four times more.
It is not only prize money. Trainers and breeders are also bearing the brunt of the cost of living crisis and supply-chain issues. Feed is more expensive; electricity and fuel for transportation are more expensive—the list goes on. I am reluctant to automatically go down the route of saying that more funding is the solution, without looking hard at alternative measures, but in this case I believe it is the right path. To support the racing industry, we need to increase the money available to it.
Levy income stood at around £98 million in 2022, but we know that the right number to support the industry is around £140 million. That number can be achieved without any material restructuring; we simply need to follow the existing precedents of our European neighbours, Ireland and France, which both have a global levy. If a UK-based racing enthusiast places a bet on the Kentucky Derby, surely British racing should benefit. Where was that love of racing nurtured and cultivated? Who made the investment to create that bond and enjoyment? It was clearly predominantly British racing, so why should British racing not benefit in that scenario?
A global levy would generate around £25 million of additional revenue. If we then increased the levy by just 1.5 percentage points, from 10% to 11.5%, that would generate another £15 million, which would result in an annual income of £140 million; that is where we need to be. For good order, increasing the levy not only increases prize money. Equally importantly, it provides invaluable funding for the welfare of our horses, with improvement in equine medical science and the sport at a grass-roots level. What plans do the Government have for the levy? What are the options on the table and what do the Government see as a realistic timeframe for improvement and change to support our horseracing industry?
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, when it comes to declarations of interest, mine is the most second-hand that I can think of. I live in the village of Lambourn, Lambourn valley being the valley of the racehorse. I married into equestrianism—I should be able to say that word properly on a day like today—and I have a wife and daughter who both ride and love horses. Indeed, I remember through my courting days being woken up in the mornings by my wife going out to ride three lots over the downs. That will mean nothing to anybody who does not know anything about racing; it means getting on a half-tonne animal, with its fight and flight responses geared up, to charge up a hill at about 30 miles per hour with, in this case, a woman perched on top of it.
If you look at the industry from the point of view of the people who take part, I do not disagree with much of what has been said today. That is what I would like us to look at now. Racing supports an entire industry of people who work with their hands and are engaged in something quite dangerous.
If you want to see a good selection of braces, limps and crutches, go down the streets of Lambourn. You will find people who get thrown by horses and kicked by them but who want to get back on. If you want to discuss the intricacies of how a collarbone is repaired, go to any of the pubs in Lambourn. There will be a small person who will tell you about how they sailed across the horse’s shoulder to land splatting on the ground—and, indeed, you can go down to the rehabilitation centres in Lambourn and Moulton.
The noble Baroness, Lady Harding, gave us the best insight into this: all sports like to talk about themselves to themselves in darkened rooms and tell everybody else that they do not understand. To an extent, they do not—but all sports do this. They do not understand, because that sport does not get out there and say “Enough!” to the rest of the world in language that it may understand.
What I would also say about racing is that it supports the other equine sports. In the Lambourn Valley, you have world-class event riding and show jumping. It is a centre of veterinary medicine and of farriering—that is, shoeing horses, for anyone who is reading this who does not understand and, believe you me, there are plenty of people who do. All these things come together and interact. The people at the bottom of it are generally people who love it, who get back in and have bought into a culture. When arguments come up about the levy, racing has led the field and has supported people who actually take part at the bottom. If nothing else, it deserves support for that. Of course, it could have done it better and sooner, but it was first. I cannot see anybody else who has done it that well.
If you are supporting racing, provided that you make sure that that support goes down and helps throughout, that is doing a social good. And just as it supports the other equine activities, it is also supporting things like pony clubs. A pony club is an amateur sports club, which means that you have involvement—people coming together, voluntary activity and fundraising. We are so lucky in this country: we have a tradition of supporting our own sports. All these things are taking place. The Government should look very hard at what we can do to facilitate this connection, in this sport as in many others. That is an important thing.
The levy has been spoken about and I cannot really add very much. Yes, if you are betting anywhere in the world, why should we not get a cut here? We provide a base and a structure, and in fact the rest of world racing probably wants us to, because we have the structure here and the tradition to help them to improve their games. When something becomes an international sport, there will be interaction and changes. Look at football—look outside your bubble—and at how that has changed and that structure has shifted. You cannot change the world; you can merely operate better in it.
Are the Government going to look at this ongoing process to make sure that this entire industry and amateur support system works properly? The noble Baroness, Lady Harding, has given the best example of where state intervention should come from under a Conservative Government in the long term. But there has there has to be some action here. People complain that it is difficult to place a bet, but the difference with racing is that it is the only sport that I can think of that is so incredibly tightly linked to gambling, and always has been. Ancient texts about bets on horse races go back to everywhere. There was a different type of activity—there was chariot racing—but you name it, it was all there. But there is going to be that interaction.
If we are worried about problem gambling because it is at the end of a phone, there will have to be some checks and changes. Whether it is done properly and well is a good question, and one that probably only government has the resources to check properly. But it has to happen; otherwise, the damage done outweighs the social benefit. Other countries have faced this—Kenya, for example, with betting on football. The gambling is the problem, not the football. How do you interact with that? If we can hear something from the Government today about their thinking, I would be very glad to take that back, as would many of my colleagues who look at this. What is that connection, what is that thought, and how does it come backwards and forwards here?
There is also the fact that you can overdo these complaints—when someone says, “It took my daughter several minutes to open dozens of accounts so she could check what was the best price, at the age of 18”. Grow up. If it takes a couple of days to get them online, that is fine—and it does not have to be at the age of 18. There are limits and realistic chances that you have to take here: certain people will be vulnerable, and you will have to intervene. If we are overdoing it at the moment, and it is clumsy, fair enough; let us look again. I do not blame the racing industry. We do not blame brewers because a few people become alcoholics, or most of us do not anyway.
How are we going to work this out? Are we taking into account the fact it supports an entire industry of people who are fairly low paid and in low-status jobs? It is an industry that has looked after them reasonably well; it could always do better, but it has. It set a precedent. It looks after the welfare of people who are injured doing these jobs. So it has good things about it, but its relationship with gambling has always been problematic and always will be. Keeping the benefits of it will require government action and for everybody to become grown-ups. Saying, “Oh dear, it’s difficult”, will not work for anybody.
Are the Government looking at this in the round, as a sports and leisure interactive sector? The fact is that football stadiums might host the odd concert, and I know for a fact that Newbury Racecourse hosts dozens. They act as part of that social link. How does that fit into this sector? It is more than just racing: it is a social structure and an industry that comes together. Can we please hear what the Government are doing about that? Gambling started with racing as a constructive activity—it was actually outdone by cricket at one point; that is odd, isn’t it? That was the way spot betting went in the 18th century. What are we doing to ensure that gambling’s symbiotic relationship with the racing industry functions correctly so that we get the best while at least mitigating the worst?
I hope the Minister will give us a coherent answer. If he cannot, he should go back to his department and say, “Please, we need to know what is happening here”. That is what the question is.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I draw your Lordships’ attention to my declared interests. I wish they were as exciting as everyone else’s, but it is just hospitality with the Betting and Gaming Council. It serves me right for going to the cricket.
This has been a truly interesting debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs, for convening the debate and for his opening remarks, which have made clear the importance of the horseracing and bloodstock industries to our national economy, as well as to our international standing. It is only 10 months since we last debated the importance of this sector in your Lordships’ House. That fact alone is a testament to both the value of and fondness with which we consider the industry.
I stand here as the great-niece of a bookie, whose funeral was on the front page of the Racing Post, and the granddaughter of an amazing man who liked more than an occasional bet on the horses. One of my earliest memories was him taking me to the sweetshop to get sweets so that I would not grass him to my grandmother while he went in to place a bet. I am also a very proud resident of Staffordshire, where Uttoxeter Racecourse plays an important part in our county’s local economy; and, of course, Bet365 is the largest private sector employer in my great city. I am very sorry for the noble Lord’s experiences; when he started talking about Bet365 I got very worried about where that conversation was going. It should not surprise your Lordships that I have an affinity with horseracing, and I appreciate the importance of the bloodstock industry, which is so vital to the success of our sector.
This has been an incredibly informative debate and it has been a joy to listen to some of your Lordships’ contributions. It was a privilege to listen to the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, talk about her experiences. Much has moved on since your Lordships last debated the horseracing industry, not least the long-anticipated gambling White Paper, which we have touched on. I may be a fan of the sector, and even place the odd bet on my Bet365 app, but that does not mean that I am unaware of the darker side of the gambling industry. Addiction can ruin lives, and it is something we need to acknowledge. Problem gambling has not only a personal impact but economic and social impacts.
We know that some in the horseracing industry have been unsettled by constant speculation about what the review process might mean, and still are. We sympathise with those concerns, even though we believe the Government were right to undertake their review of existing regulation. It is regrettable that the progress has been so incredibly slow and that even now, nobody has absolute certainty about what the future holds.
Proper regulation, enforcement and support for gamblers can go a long way to ensuring that the overwhelming majority can enjoy the occasional flutter while the most vulnerable are protected. Many people visit a betting shop or use an online platform only once or twice a year, to back a horse in one of racing’s crown jewels: the Epsom Derby or the Grand National. While we must act quickly to better protect those who are at risk, that occasional punter should also not face excessive burdens.
As has been highlighted, we must also ensure that our domestic equine businesses operate on a level playing field and that any change is proportionate and enacted in consultation with the sector. This is especially the case when we consider the anticipated reduction to the online element of the horserace betting levy by up to 11%. As the industry seeks to recover from the impact of Covid, which we have not touched on, and which may feel like a dim and distant memory for some, it is still impacting too many businesses. We need to be careful that we do not move too quickly with any of these proposals, which may risk undermining local businesses as they strive to re-establish financial stability.
That brings me to the rural nature of the businesses concerned. We have spent many, many hours over the last year scrutinising the levelling-up Bill, and we will continue to do so next week. But what is levelling up if it does not also seek to improve the economic outlook of every community, including our rural communities, where over 20,000 people are directly employed in the sector, with many more in associated industries, as has been highlighted? We must strive to facilitate growth in every part of our economy, and this is no less true of horseracing, bloodstock and the associated industries. We ignore the sector at our peril, and I hope that the Minister has some reassurance for us regarding the support for our rural communities.
That brings me to the extra economic activities that are driving extra revenue into our racecourses, which we have not touched on. Lots of tracks, including my own Uttoxeter, are diversifying to increase their revenue and broaden their appeal, seeking to maximise the track as a venue. Can the Minister say whether His Majesty’s Government are working with the sector to expand that activity? Are there financial incentives available, and are they content that licensing rules are sufficiently flexible to allow additional activity while ensuring that the impact on local residents is minimised?
As we discuss the businesses which are at the heart of the sector, it would be remiss of me not to touch on matters of equine health and welfare, consideration of which must be at the core of every business in the field. Whether or not you agree with the tactics of the various campaign groups involved—I do not—protests at a number of high-profile race meets over the past year have brought these issues back into the public consciousness. We recognise the steps taken by breeders, trainers, jockeys and others across the racing and bloodstock industries to improve welfare standards, and to be more open about why certain practices exist or choices have been made. That is not to say that things are perfect, or that there are not individual cases which will cause public concern when they come to light, but enormous strides have been made.
That is why we are pleased that the Thoroughbred Breeders’ Association held its first ever conference in June this year, which explored many of the issues which have been touched on by others today, including sharing best practice regarding welfare standards. I believe that it is admirable that the TBA also used its conference to begin a conversation about social licence in the context of the breeding industry, especially with regards to changing attitudes towards animals in sport. If the sport is to survive, we need to start having those conversations—and there will be many more in the years ahead.
I have now finished my substantive comments but before I sit down, tomorrow is Jewish New Year, and new year is always about horseracing—although maybe not for Jewish New Year. However, I wish all your Lordships shanah tovah—happy new year—and I look forward to hearing the comments from the Minister.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as having had the pleasure of attending this year’s Royal Ascot, and my uncle spent a great many years working in the training yards in Newmarket and Ireland. I thank my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs for tabling this important and timely debate during National Racehorse Week, and I thank all noble Lords for their heartfelt participation throughout.
His Majesty’s Government acknowledge the significant contribution that racing makes to our economy. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, mentioned the central role it plays in the livelihoods of rural communities. The employment that it supports across racecourses, training yards, breeding operations and related sectors reflects a powerhouse industry respected at home and abroad. The Government absolutely agree that British racing is a substantial asset to the country and remain committed to supporting the industry to prosper.
As has been noted, horseracing is the second biggest sport in the UK in terms of attendance, employment and annual revenue. According to the British Horseracing Authority, racing is worth more than £4 billion annually to the economy in direct, indirect and associated expenditure. The public’s love of racing is shown by the numbers attending flagship race meetings—65,000 to 70,000 at the Grand National and more than 200,000 over the four days of the Cheltenham Festival. British racing and breeding enjoys a reputation as a global leader and is promoted worldwide as part of the GREAT Britain and Northern Ireland campaign. This recognises the significant cultural and economic importance of horseracing to the UK and the role it plays as a soft power asset.
My noble friends Lord Herbert of South Downs, Lady Harding of Winscombe and Lord Effingham have all noted the importance of the levy. The horserace betting levy has evolved in step with the betting industry since it was introduced in the 1960s. In 2017, the Government extended the levy to online bookmakers and fixed the rate at 10% so that it no longer had to be negotiated each year. The 2017 reforms almost doubled the amount of levy collected from £49.8 million to £95 million and it has continued to perform well. Even in 2020-21, with racing suspended for two months and betting shops closed for much longer, it returned £82 million. The forecast for 2022-23 is £99 million.
Noble Lords mentioned prizes. Mechanisms for funding racing in other jurisdictions are not directly comparable with Great Britain. For example, France has a state monopoly and in Ireland there is a general tax and a grant to racing. The Horserace Betting Levy Board has made additional contributions to prize money, supported by a £21.5 million loan via the sport survival package. It should be noted that prize money in Great Britain is spread across a greater number of fixtures and the British Horseracing Authority is trialling changes to the fixture list from 2024 aimed at growing the sport.
I turn to the Government’s review of the levy. The British Horseracing Authority has presented its case that there is a significant gap in funding, meaning that it is unable to compete with jurisdictions such as Ireland and France. It has also submitted suggestions on how to close this gap. We are considering these proposals as we undertake our review, which is due in April 2024. I cannot pre-empt its outcome, but I reassure all noble Lords that the decision will be firmly based on evidence and that the suggestion made by many noble Lords that the scope of the levy should be amended to include racing outside Great Britain is being considered as part of the review.
Noble Lords asked what the Government are doing to increase the amount raised by the levy. These changes would require legislation, so it is sensible to explore a voluntary agreement when there are so many competing demands on parliamentary time. However, we are looking at all options, including—as has been pre-empted—encouraging racing and betting to work together in the best interests of the sport. Reaching a mutual agreement on the way forward for the levy would be beneficial to everyone. To support this aim, the BHA and the BGC were invited to submit evidence over the summer. I know that my right honourable friend the Minister for Sport, Gambling and Civil Society met both industries earlier this week.
The levy is not the only source of funding for racing, as noted by noble Lords. It represented just 6% of racing’s total income in 2022, with far greater proportions earned from owners, breeders, racegoers, media rights deals and sponsorship. However, we have committed to a review of the levy and asked racing and betting to explore jointly how they can maximise other sources of income. I am encouraged by the close engagement that has taken place thus far.
I turn now to the gambling review. Concerns have been raised by the BHA and the Countryside Alliance, as well as by noble Lords in this debate, about the impact of financial risk checks, as set out in the Government’s Gambling Act review White Paper. We specifically assessed the potential impact that gambling would have on the racing sector. Our assessment, set out in the White Paper, was that the impact on racing will be minimal in the context of its overall income but, as we committed, we are currently reviewing the levy to ensure that racing continues to be appropriately funded.
As noble Lords on the other side of the discussion mentioned, it is crucial that we undertake this review of gambling controls. We are challenging the industry to prevent the egregious examples we have seen, where customers are allowed to incur potentially life-changing losses without any checks on their circumstances. Operators have responded to that challenge in a variety of ways—some by taking a very risk-averse approach. We certainly do not want to go down the track of the PEPs situation that we have seen with banking; that is absolutely clear. The key to any outcome will be not just how it is described but how it is run and implemented.
The proposals on financial risk checks will apply only to online gambling accounts and will not affect betting shops or on-course bookmakers. They will support a standard approach and use a range of indicators to look at the behaviour of a bettor. Betting companies could and should already be checking when customers spend huge sums, which is one of those key indicators, but industry has sometimes failed to do enough to stop life-changing sums of money being lost by people potentially in the grip of addiction. That is why the Government and the Gambling Commission are stepping in.
However, we are alive to the need to be proportionate. The White Paper was clear: we want checks only for those most at risk of harm, and we want the checks themselves to be painless for the overwhelming majority of customers. We know that higher rates of problem gambling are associated with online casino games and that problem gamblers use multiple products. Therefore, it would not be responsible to exclude an individual’s use of a particular product from these protective measures.
Some concerns relate to details such as the frequency of assessment and how to consider previous winnings, but that is precisely why the Gambling Commission is consulting on how best to introduce these measures, rather than a diktat being administered straight away. It is a live consultation and an opportunity to shape the outcome. I also reassure noble Lords that checks will be introduced only when there is confidence that they will indeed be frictionless. The Government are keen to ensure that measures such as financial risk checks do not adversely affect racing, interrupt the customer journey or—this is key—push away high net-worth individuals, such as owners and trainers, who invest in the sport.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, raised the important issue of welfare. The British Horseracing Authority is responsible for the safety of racehorses at British racecourses. The BHA works alongside the RSPCA and World Horse Welfare to make horseracing as safe as possible. The Government welcomed the formation of the racing industry’s Horse Welfare Board in March 2019. The board has assured the Government that it is committed to doing all it can to make the sport safer and improve welfare outcomes.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, talked about wider support for the sector. The numerous stakeholders in racing have recently agreed that the British Horseracing Authority is the decision-maker on the sport’s future strategy. The BHA has recently put forward proposals for a future racing product, which includes premierisation of the sport, protected time slots for races and reforms to the fixture list. I know that the potential for hospitality and conference facilities at racecourses is part of the sport’s plans to grow their tier income and to support owners and trainers. All these ways in which the key jewels in the crown can maximise their revenue will support the wider industries and communities involved in horseracing.
I listened carefully to what my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs said about the special status of Newmarket to the infrastructure of British racing. I will ensure that colleagues are aware of those concerns. The Government remain committed to supporting British horseracing, which is vital to the rural economy as well as a source of great pleasure to many people. I again thank my noble friend for securing this debate during National Racehorse Week, and look forward to further discussions on these important issues.
Abraham Accords
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Polak
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to ensure the success of the Abraham Accords.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I refer the House to my registered interests. Tomorrow marks the three-year anniversary of the signing of the Abraham accords. On 15 September 2020, the world witnessed a remarkable moment in Washington, as the United Arab Emirates, the Kingdom of Bahrain and the State of Israel came together to sign the Abraham accords. A few months later, the Kingdom of Morocco joined this transformative accord.
I would like to take a moment to express my deepest condolences and unwavering support for the people of Morocco in the wake of the devastating earthquake that struck earlier this week. I am deeply saddened to learn of the tragic loss of over 2,900 lives and hope for a swift and complete recovery for those injured or displaced. I pay tribute to the Minister for his leadership in getting aid to Morocco so quickly.
These accords were not merely ink on paper, they were a resounding statement—a pledge to normalise relations between nations that had once stood on opposite sides. It was a monumental achievement, initiated by the United States and one that many had previously considered an unattainable dream. Yet, I cannot help but observe that we in the United Kingdom were not, and are not, involved.
In a debate held in the other place in October 2021, Robert Jenrick posed a fundamental question about the accords. He said:
“what is the role for the United Kingdom, and for our Government in particular, in taking this forward?”—[Official Report, Commons, 25/10/21; col. 113.]
It is with a sense of disappointment and a desire for clarity that, nearly two years later, I ask His Majesty’s Government the same question. What is our role in the Abraham accords? What proactive steps are we taking to further the progress that has already been made? Are we actively engaging with neighbouring states, those nations that are close friends of the UK, to encourage their participation in the enterprise? What concrete measures are the Government undertaking to ensure the long-term success of the accords?
The Abraham accords represent a beacon of hope in a region that has endured decades of turmoil and division. They have already shown promise but their full potential is yet to be realised and it is incumbent upon us, as representatives of a nation committed to promoting peace, stability and prosperity, to take decisive action. We have a proud history of diplomatic leadership and it is my hope that we can harness that legacy to contribute significantly to the success of the Abraham accords.
Robert Greenway, president of the Abraham Accords Peace Institute, recently highlighted the crucial role of the accords in Middle East diplomacy—especially in countering the growing threat from Iran. The Abraham accords unite former adversaries around common interests. First, in security, particularly regarding Iran and the destabilising actions of the IRGC, the accords have created a strong coalition to counter Iran’s expansionist agenda and have enhanced co-ordination and intelligence sharing to respond to regional threats. I remind the Minister that I continue to urge the Government to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation.
Secondly, on economic growth, the accords have prompted co-operation and resource sharing among participating nations. This has diversified regional economies, reducing reliance on oil and increasing resilience against economic shocks. Lastly, Robert Greenway suggests that the accords enabled the United States to maintain a leading role in promoting peace and countering China’s influence in the Middle East. Securing the region is vital for global energy and trade, and the accords help to deter Russian aggression by uniting participating nations.
If the Abraham accords play a pivotal role in aligning regional interests, enhancing security, fostering economic growth and ensuring that the United States remains a key player in promoting peace and countering global tension, where is the United Kingdom? The UK is not playing a role in these accords and, as a result, we are acting against our own interests and our own national security.
I have previously likened the Abraham accords to a peace train that journeyed to Jerusalem, continued to Dubai and Manama and, further, to Rabat. The train shows no sign of stopping; instead, it is gaining momentum, with suggestions that its next destination may be Riyadh. The UK boasts strong ties with many countries in the region, and we should play a pivotal role in encouraging neighbouring states to join—most especially the Palestinian Authority. It must board this train and embrace the enormous opportunities that peace can bring.
Together with my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, in September 2021 we cofounded the UK Abraham Accords Group, chaired by Dr Liam Fox MP, with the key aim of encouraging our Government to support, deepen and expand the Abraham accords to other Middle Eastern and African partners. Our hope is that His Majesty’s Government will not only secure more signatories to the accords but facilitate the expansion of relationships beyond normalisation into multifaceted economic security and cultural ties.
Let us just look at what has been achieved as a result of the Abraham accords. Total trade between Israel and the Abraham accords countries surged from $593 million in 2019 to $3.47 billion in 2022. Israel significantly increased its imports from those countries, going from $378 million to $2.57 billion in goods and services, and exports grew from $224 million to $903 million. Those are deep and significant achievements—things are happening.
What of Saudi Arabia? Although not yet a formal participant in the Abraham accords, a promising indication of the ongoing normalisation and relationship-building between Israel and other nations in the region has emerged. The development became evident when Israeli-founded smart energy tech firm Solar Edge entered only a few weeks ago into a joint venture with Saudi Arabia’s Ajlan holdings to deploy solar energy in the kingdom. This signifies more than just a step forward, improving environmental sustainability in the region. It represents the inaugural publicly acknowledged co-operation between the two countries, and I fervently hope that Saudi Arabia will normalise its relationship with Israel.
In the debate that took place in the other place two years ago, the Minister for the Middle East, who is now the Foreign Secretary, answered Robert Jenrick’s question by stating:
“I look forward to working closely with my opposite numbers in the UAE, Bahrain and Israel, and, indeed, any other country that wishes to join and support the normalisation of relations, and bring peace, strength and stability to the region”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/10/2021; col. 118.]
However, I contend that since that statement, very little has been done by the Foreign Office to carry out that commitment. The political landscape has drastically changed over the past few years. Now is the time to grasp the opportunity to reassess policy on Israeli-Arab relations and, more broadly, our regional policies there. It is neither sufficient nor acceptable to use the same old words and policies that we have relied on for 50 or more years, which have continued to fail to bring about any practical help or change.
Earlier this year I was in Bahrain, at the Manama dialogue, when the Foreign Minister of Bahrain, Minister Zayani, requested from our Foreign Secretary that the UK join the Negev forum. Has the FCDO taken any steps to ensure that the UK is involved in the Negev forum? Furthermore, I ask my noble friend the Minister a purely logistical question. How many civil servants in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office are working on developing the Abraham accords? It is my understanding that currently, most shockingly and shamefully, not one official has the role of focusing on the Abraham accords.
As we approach the three-year anniversary of the historic Abraham accords, and the Jewish new year, Rosh Hashanah, is upon us, there is a profound symbolism in considering the role of the United Kingdom in furthering the path to peace. Rosh Hashanah is a time of reflection and renewal: a moment to set intentions for the year ahead. It is a time when the Jewish community worldwide gathers to pray for a better world, where the pursuit of peace and justice is paramount. In that spirit of renewal and commitment to a brighter future, I urge my noble friend and the entire Government to take bold and decisive steps in support of the Abraham accords.
Just as individuals at Rosh Hashanah reflect on past actions and set intentions for the year ahead, so too should our Government contemplate their role in promoting regional stability and co-operation. In the spirit of Rosh Hashanah, let us find the courage and determination to play our part in this historic endeavour, ensuring a more peaceful and prosperous future for all the peoples of the region. The time for action is now: in the pages of history, let it be recorded that we, the United Kingdom, played our part in advancing a brighter, more peaceful future in the Middle East.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a board member of the UK Abraham Accords Group and as one of the co-chairs of the All-Party Group on the Abraham Accords. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Polak, for his excellent speech and for giving us the opportunity to debate this. His personal leadership and role in developing our country’s relations with that region is well known to all and we thank him for that. In particular, he—I would say “my noble friend”—has been a great colleague and, on many occasions, a great servant for this country. I also associate myself with the words that he said about the situation in Morocco. A terrible tragedy has been unfolding there, and I too extend sympathy to its people. Whatever we can do to help them would be most welcome. I am sure that the Minister will touch on that in his comments.
The Question we have here is to look at the Abraham accords and how we should view them. I think we have to consider them as one of the single most transformational moments in the Middle East. That is not to say that in and of itself, that moment was everything. We have to acknowledge that the region has changed substantially in the relations between countries due to different factors. For those who remember the work on the development reports that the United Nations was doing in the early 1990s, there has been a whole series of changes, not least in the security situation. We have to say that the Abraham accords are set within the context of a changing region—which is taking a very different view about what people can do and how they can define their futures. That includes the visionary leadership in the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, which are intent on changing the course of their nations’ participation in society.
These are factors that we have to consider, so the question is then: why it is important to the UK? It is fairly obvious, not least for anyone who has read our own review of our strategy on foreign and defence policy. We want to be involved at the real heart of shaping the international order of the future. We have vital security interests, which are being challenged all the time, and of course our competitive advantage is based around where the science and technology of the future will go. This region is really coming on in leaps and bounds in participation, and the collaboration between countries is immense.
The next question is: what should we do? The answer is, of course, to fully engage. The point about the Negev forum, which is in a sense the diplomatic and economic grunt-work of this process, is that it is absolutely vital for us to engage properly. The Americans sent 40 people from across government to the previous one. It is not about just one issue or the Foreign Office; it touches on every single part. We in the UK Abraham Accords Group are going to try to do our part, ably led by the ex-Minister Liam Fox, who is well known to people in this House. We also have Ruth Paris on the international advisory board and, most importantly, it is formally and strongly sponsored by the ambassadors of Israel, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates. However, I really hope that the Minister will agree that the UK could consider engaging with it much more as a forum, an opportunity and as a strategic interest for our country. That is the most important and vital step we need to take.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is always interesting to listen to the noble Lord. I served on the International Relations and Defence Committee with him and it was a pleasure to do so. I appreciate the usual channels facilitating the swap of my noble friend Lady Ludford and myself, as I am due to take part in and wind for my party on the next debate in the Chamber, which is on climate and migration—an issue affected by the region that we are discussing. Indeed, I will refer to Morocco and the region in that debate, so I apologise in advance if I miss the closing remarks.
The noble Lord is absolutely right that this is a changing region and there is a major shift. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Emirates are now seeing a growing sense of national identity. Indeed, the accords will provide an opportunity to ensure that that is not growing nationalism within the area.
We know, however, that there are areas of difference. These are all sovereign countries that have their own interests, and many of them compete both economically and militarily—we have seen that in Yemen already—but if this facilitates the reduction of tensions in that region, that is to be welcomed.
I therefore wish to make two points. First, what should we consider a peace dividend from the accords? That is hard to determine. We have not seen a reduction in the tension, violence and instability in Lebanon, Sudan or Palestine. Yemen continues to be a scar on the region and for humanity, with the challenges that the Yemenis face. What would we consider to be a regional peace dividend from the accords? At the moment, I would venture to say that it is hard to determine.
Secondly, we see not only a potentially declining UK position but a growing position on China. We have asked questions of the Minister regarding the Chinese-facilitated talks between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Iran. What is the UK’s assessment of the position that China is taking? I want to quote the accords. These are all fine words:
“We seek tolerance and respect for every person in order to make this world a place where all can enjoy a life of dignity and hope, no matter their race, faith or ethnicity”.
They also say:
“We … recognize the importance of maintaining and strengthening peace in the Middle East and around the world”.
However, that was signed by the dictator of Sudan. Words should mean something when people sign up to accords. Unfortunately, the Sudanese experience means that we have difficulty defining things. What is the Government’s assessment with regard to the Sudanese?
In my last seconds, I wish to refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Polak, and ask what the Government’s assessment is of the United States’s discussions with Saudi Arabia on a new security guarantee. It may also be for the house of Saud, not just Saudi Arabia. Is the UK supporting that initiative? Does the UK wish to be part of it?
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Polak, for securing this short debate and my admiration and gratitude to all those who have supported and championed the Abraham accords all across the Middle East and beyond. They are truly an historic achievement, and I applaud the courage of all those who seek to bring peace to this long-troubled region. I add my thoughts and indeed prayers for the people of Morocco as well.
Noble Lords have already mentioned a number of reasons for why the accords are so significant for the region as well as for the UK. I wish to add to this debate my observation that, at the same time as supporting peace efforts in the Middle East itself, we must be proactive in addressing the tensions which conflict in the Middle East can cause here in the UK. We saw an example of this during the May 2021 Gaza conflict, when there was a steep increase in hate crimes committed against both Muslims and Jews in this country. We cannot presume, therefore, that peaceful coexistence between Jewish and Muslim communities will come about automatically in the UK simply because we are at a geographical remove from the Middle East. It is by no means impossible, but it does not come of its own accord.
A poll done in 2020 found that 44% of British Muslims believed that British Jews were more loyal to Israel than to the UK, a belief counted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance to be anti-Semitic. That is nearly twice as many as among the general public at large. However, that perception of dual loyalty was significantly less common among those surveyed who had friends who were Jewish. It is true integration, then, and the opportunity to build friendships, that can make living well with difference possible.
I could give many examples from my local context in Leicester that work across different faiths, particularly our St Philip’s Centre. We are doing a lot locally to build these friendships. However, we also need action from the Government. We need a robust long-term strategy for integration for each of the four nations of the UK, with clearly defined responsibilities for local authorities and funding allocated at national, regional and local levels.
I was encouraged recently to hear that, after the Government had decided to revoke the Inter Faith Network’s funding, they agreed to offer it financial support for one further year. But what is the Government’s long-term strategy for supporting interfaith relations in the UK?
The Abraham accords are an important framework that makes relationships across divides possible and fruitful. The UK Government should passionately support them, but we must also ensure that such frameworks undergird and nurture our common life here too.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, it is now three years since the signing of the Abraham accords at the White House, arranged by the United States between the UAE, Bahrain, Israel and, as we have just heard, Morocco. Sudan has not signed them but is in the process of doing so. I join noble Lords in conveying condolences to Morocco, a country that many of us have visited and are very fond of, on the tragic situation there.
These Abraham accords are crucial in promoting interfaith and intercultural dialogue, peace, dignity and hope among the Abrahamic religions—and, quite frankly, among all humanity, not just in the Middle East but around the world. One cannot fault the accords’ intentions. It is clear, we hope, that other countries will join them. Oman was expected to sign; it then criminalised any relations or interactions with Israel, but has since opened its airspace to Israeli flights. I hope that these accords pave the way between Saudi Arabia and Israel. The US is very keen—as are we all—to normalise relations with Saudi Arabia. Is it the Government’s view that this is on the right track and will happen?
Concern is constantly expressed from the United States and the UK about the settlements on the West Bank. What is the Government’s view on this? There is a cycle of violence in Israel and the West Bank. I was privileged to be part of the delegation organised by ELNET in May to Israel, led by the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg. We visited not only Tel Aviv and Jerusalem but the West Bank; we met the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah and went to the Gaza border. If only we could have peace over there. We keep talking about the two-state solution, and the Minister has said that we should be committed to it, but how confident is he in the chance of it happening, given the circumstances that persist at the moment?
Finally, we have a big opportunity to take the Abraham accords further with COP 28 taking place in the UAE this November and December. This will be a phenomenal opportunity. The business champion is my friend Badr Jafar. The good news is that, for the first time, we will have a business and philanthropic forum right up front alongside the leaders’ meeting at the beginning of COP 28. One of the big objectives of the Abraham accords is to further trade, business and tourism in the region. Is the Minister confident that we will make the most of this great opportunity and will the UK be represented there?
Lord Stone of Blackheath (Non-Afl)
My Lords, ever since I spent a year in the Middle East in 1967 as a volunteer in the Six Day War, I have been involved with schemes trying to bring nations there together for peace. The Abraham accords are exactly what my old company, Marks & Spencer, was trying to do in the region for decades—on a smaller scale, of course. In 1977, we started deliberately buying goods in volume from Egypt, as we already were from Israel; we hoped this would persuade President Sadat to visit Israel and make peace, and he did.
In the 1980s, we persuaded our Israeli manufacturers to manufacture Marks & Spencer goods in Egypt, Jordan and Morocco. Delta Galil set up a factory in Cairo, employing 12,500 people making socks and underwear using the best Egyptian cotton, and another factory in Jordan, thus developing warm relations. Then, in the 1990s, Tony Blair asked if I would go to the West Bank and Gaza to do the same for the Palestinians. We did that successfully.
Why do I mention all this? It is because there is now a great opportunity, on a much larger scale, for the countries of the Gulf and north Africa to use their wealth and assets to include Israel in a massive transformation of the region, to move from oil and gas-producing industries to wind, solar and other clean forms of energy and greener technologies. By using the brilliant science, ingenuity and advanced technology in Israel, this can make them all very wealthy and create close partnerships, at the same time as saving the planet.
Specifically, to enhance the Abraham accords, Saudi Arabia can perhaps join in. It wants to recognise Israel but, at the same time, support Palestine. It can do this by combining recognition of Israel with a major, game-changing investment in Palestine—something spectacular that is not easy for Israel to agree to but doable. It needs to be something that Saudi Arabia can deliver, and be seen to have been delivered on the back of a recognition of Israel and benefits for Palestine.
Nabil Shaath had a plan for the redevelopment of Gaza Port with a “linked” port in Cyprus. This would mean Saudi recognition of both Israel and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Although the costs of such a dramatic gesture of this kind would be immense, there would be private sector investment and other Governments might contribute—perhaps the USA—but Saudi Arabia would be the main shareholder.
As the UK has expertise in all this, possesses great diplomatic skills and has good relations with countries across the region, we could play a vital role. Perhaps the Minister could suggest to His Majesty’s Government that we could host a series of meetings here and discuss all this with these parties in this very House.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, the prophet Abraham, after whom these accords are named, is remembered five times a day in the prayers of devout Muslims. He is a towering figure in Islam. He has the title Khalilullah—friend of God—and is seen as the ancestor of Moses, who watches over our proceedings stony-faced, Jesus and the Prophet Muhammad. However, he himself is not seen as Christian, Jewish or Muslim. He is rather a sort of primordial monotheist who lives instinctively within divine law and recognising divine justice.
In the Jewish and, by extension, Christian traditions, the salient fact is that he is a wanderer who settles down. The Bible says that Abraham
“spake unto the sons of Heth … I am a stranger and a sojourner with you … give me … a buryingplace with you, that I may bury my dead out of my sight”.
The return of Jews to Israel was with an overriding wish to be welcomed home—to have nothing more than peace with their neighbours. Finally, that prospect is on the horizon. It is a great cosmic irony that, just as Israel is improving its relations with its Arab neighbours, it is worsening its situation with many western and European countries, but that is a topic for a different debate.
I think these accords came about because other Arab states realised that it was no longer feasible to give an effective veto to the most hard-line elements in the Palestinian leadership. They saw that, even when offers were made, as under Ehud Barak or Ehud Olmert, that would have given 95% or an equivalent of 100% of the territory with land swaps and control of east Jerusalem, that was not enough and they decided to go further, over the heads of some of the Palestinian leaders but in the interests of the Palestinian people. That creates a new situation and a new opportunity, if Israel will now have the imagination and generosity to grasp it and if Palestinians will come on board with the process.
I am not saying for a moment that this is easy, but imagine a situation where there are no physical barriers around the Palestinian territories; where that country can be integrated into the world economy and can trade its way to prosperity—an embourgeoisement of Palestine, if you will; where you will have a propertied class that will not tolerate lawlessness or freelance rocket launchers but will want to remain on good terms with its customers, most of whom will find themselves in Israel. As Milton Friedman said, there is nothing like trade to make people who do not get on get on.
I appreciate that taking down the barriers to get there is not an easy thing, but is it not worth the effort? Is it not worth at least considering the Palestinians as an entity capable of making their own decisions—whether they want confederation with Israel or with Jordan or whatever—and recognising them as a unit? Surely Abraham has buried enough of his dead out of his sight.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, noble Lords have referred to the incomprehensible earthquake disaster in Morocco, but let us not forget the equal horrors in Libya and Turkey.
Sustainable and lasting peace in the Middle East is an elusive goal that has been bedevilled over the decades. I reflect often on a long-ago meeting in Amman, discussing the role of Israel in the Arab world and the necessary building blocks of partnership that could come to fruition with a focus on security and intelligence. In essence, it was what Israel could bring to the Arab world and the Arab world could bring to Israel.
What gave the Abraham accords impetus was Iran, along with other security concerns. However, one should never forget that the elephant in the room—the Palestinian plight—remains. However, I am encouraged that US and Palestinian officials are in Riyadh for talks on a Saudi-Israel deal, but also remembering that it is now the 30th anniversary since the PLO signed the Oslo accords that officially recognised Israel—how time flies. Now is the time for the Oslo accords to be merged with the Abraham accords and come full circle, bringing equitable and purposeful closure of all the inequities, which would bring real, sustainable peace and partnership to the region.
Where do we go from here? Without any question, we are living in a changing world, where new players on the block are expressing that enough is enough of the ways of old. We must commend the historic Comprehensive Security Integration and Prosperity Agreement signed yesterday between the US and Bahrain, which enhances co-operation in areas from defence and security to emerging technology, trade and investment—useful building blocks indeed in the region. Nothing now can be taken for granted. You see it in the Chinese-brokered Saudi-Iran rapprochement, in Africa with the BRICS enlargement that more increasingly will drive self-interest, and in a China pushback with the proposed India-Middle East transport corridor.
On the Abraham accords themselves, undoubtedly a regional trade agreement must be on the table. But where is the UK in all of this? Why, with all our past associations and deep sense of understanding, has the US shuttered us out of the Negev process? Disrespect, I would call it, for what we could bring forward, and for what in reality we need in a post-Brexit world. The accords have been successful for the signatories, and this is an opportunity for the UK to make an impact in the Middle East. The UK should be viewed, as we are, as a rock-solid friend who is forward-thinking and an innovator.
The Abraham accords should be seen as a platform to demonstrate leadership, and with our financial, legal, and enterprising expertise, the UK should be moving full steam ahead in supporting trade and FTAs with the Abraham accords membership. The deeper the relationship with these countries, the better for the UK and the West generally in terms of security, peace, and prosperity, with the additional plus of it becoming more likely that more countries will join. I join with others in encouraging the Government to task a dedicated official at the FCDO to advancing the Abraham accords.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, given that we have time, and with the leave of your Lordships, I will make an executive decision and suggest that the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, should have four minutes rather than three minutes.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I am so shocked—I am recalling life in the European Parliament, where we were lucky if we got two minutes.
I am pleased that we are having this debate and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Polak, on securing it, almost on the third anniversary of the signature of the original accords. In fact, the anniversary is tomorrow, which is also the festival of Rosh Hashanah, so I wish Jewish colleagues and the community in general a happy new year and shanah tovah.
I strongly welcome the Abraham accords as a factor of peace and development in the Middle East region. In the 1970s, I visited Israel on a scholarship from the Anglo-Israel Association. This led me on a journey to being today a vice-president of the Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel, so I am deeply committed to the security and flourishing of Israel at peace in its region.
I wrote a pamphlet as a result of that trip which urged regional economic integration. Yes, I was inspired by the then EEC and I was thinking of Israel’s neighbours, not Gulf or North African countries beyond Egypt, but the destination is more important than the route. People-to-people contacts as much as official ones will help to normalise relations. Beside trade and tourism, support in bad times can help. We are, of course, particularly thinking, as the noble Lord pointed out, of Moroccan, Libyan and, previously, Turkish victims of terrible disasters. I understand that several Israeli teams are assisting with the rescue effort on the ground in Morocco.
The largely positive picture from the Abraham accords is marred by a deplorable rise in extremism in some quarters. This includes the absolutely shocking recent remarks by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas that Hitler murdered European Jews in the Holocaust not because of anti-Semitism but because of Jews’ “social role” in society. Those remarks have been greeted with widespread horror, including by leading Palestinian public figures in an open letter in which they
‘unequivocally condemn the morally and politically reprehensible comments’.
Sadly, we also have shocking extremists sharing in government on the Israeli side. While I will always be a friend of Israel, this has not made me a friend of all Israeli Governments, but the current Government are the worst I have ever witnessed. The make-up and domestic policies of this Netanyahu Government in encouraging illegal settlements and failing to stop settler violence against Palestinians are surely deterrents to reinforcing the Abraham accords—although they in any case bring their own headaches, such as how to treat Saudi Arabia’s leader Mohammed Bin Salman—and to any peace with Palestinians. Of course terrorist attacks by Palestinians on Israeli civilians as much as Israeli settler violence are deplorable, and I condemn both. The prospects for peace and a two-state solution with the Palestinians have rarely looked worse, and the Abraham accords are not an alternative to that.
On a trip last November with Caabu, I found it sobering to hear the alienation of young Palestinians from not only Israel but their own Palestinian Authority, which was last elected 15 years ago. It is interesting and possibly hopeful that a recent poll found that while only just over one-quarter of Palestinians in the West Bank had a positive view of the regional impact of the Abraham accords, this rose to almost half in Gaza and nearly two-thirds in east Jerusalem, and a majority of the respondents in all three places agreed with the statement
“Arab governments are neglecting the Palestinians and starting to make friends with Israel, because they think the Palestinians should be more willing to compromise”.
That is food for thought.
I conclude with the obvious questions for the Minister, who can perhaps report on the Foreign Secretary’s recent visit to Israel. They are: where do the Government think the Abraham accords are going? What is the UK Government’s role in them, as the noble Lord, Lord Polak, asked? Do they offer any hope for Israeli-Palestinian peace? What shoots of peace can he discern for us to deliver a happy new year?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I too start by mentioning the natural disasters: the earthquake in Morocco and the horrendous floods in Libya. It looks as though there were even more deaths in Libya than in Morocco. We have to give every possible assistance in both cases; I know the Minister is actively involved in that. I too mark the new year—Shanah tovah—and hope that our prayers will be heard.
The normalisation of relations between Israel and the Arab states is an important step forward that I wholeheartedly welcomed when the accords were first agreed, and they have improved the economic prosperity of the countries involved, as we have heard from the noble Lord, and facilitated co-operation and positive dialogue. Emphasis needs to be placed on using the accords as a springboard for meaningful and lasting peace to be negotiated between the Israelis and the Palestinians. I know the Minister and the Government share the view that this can only really be achieved through a two-state solution. The commitment by the US and others to expand the Abraham accords and organisational agreements are very much to be welcomed, but, like the noble Lord, Lord Polak, I urge the Government to use their strategic influence in the Middle East and north Africa to offer political leadership for peace and reinforce the Abraham accords.
Will the Minister outline how he believes the improvement in relations between Israel and its neighbours can be used to bring about a renewed focus on a peace process for Israel and Palestine? As my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn mentioned, neither the Government’s integrated review nor the refresh mentioned the Abraham accords, so how will the Minister ensure that the UK’s approach to the Middle East and north Africa is co-ordinated and that the UK’s international policy is fully aligned? I certainly believe that they are a positive move and I hope will form a positive start for peace.
Like the Minister, I visited the West Bank not too long ago with a cross-party delegation. I visited exactly the same areas as he did and witnessed some of the violence that was perpetrated against some of the Palestinian villages. I hope he will agree to meet that delegation as soon as possible. Whatever is going on in those areas, we need to ensure that the people who speak for peace are properly heard and that we reinforce the accords as a way of achieving that.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I join others in thanking my noble friend Lord Polak for tabling this debate. I put on record my sincere thanks to him for what he has done, not just since the accords were signed but, in advance of that, in strengthening security and stability. I share very much the belief of those, including my noble friend and the noble Lords, Lord Bilimoria and Lord Mendelsohn, who say that stability and security lead to economic prosperity. That can only be good for the region and the world as a whole.
I join those who have expressed their thoughts and prayers for the people of Libya. I have spoken to the Libyan President and, this morning, to Martin Griffiths at the UN. We are co-ordinating our efforts. I know we will discuss that in the Chamber next week.
I join others in saying that we stand in absolute solidarity with Morocco. For most of Saturday night and Sunday morning I was working through the logistics of our response to the earthquake. I am delighted that, through the co-ordination we have and our investment in those relationships—it is not just the Government; many noble Lords here today have played their part in that—we were one of the few countries that were first in to make assessments. I pay tribute immediately to our search and rescue teams, which are doing such a sterling job. I assure noble Lords that we have other offers in place in place for both of those tragedies, and I will update the House accordingly.
Today we are discussing the Abraham accords. I was taken by my noble friend Lord Hannan’s contribution, when he reminded us of what looks over us and, indeed, that God minds over us. I totally align myself with his comments because that is something that we as people of faith—whatever faith we follow, but particularly those who follow the Abrahamic faith—should always reflect on.
My noble friend’s Question is equally poignant today, on the third anniversary of the historic Abraham accords. Regarding the UK role, I can put this simply to my noble friend. He rightly challenged the Government, but a lot has been done. I took on this brief in November last year and, by the sheer count of visits to those countries that are within the Abraham accords, Israel and the Palestinian territories, but equally to those countries that have not joined them and which are necessary to ensure stability and security, I can say that the Abraham accords are very much central to our dialogue.
As several noble Lords have pointed out, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has just completed his visit to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. I have not had a chance to speak to him because he is currently in Turkey, but I hope to catch up with him tomorrow morning on the outcomes of his visit.
I assure my noble friend and indeed all noble Lords that the accords that were signed unblocked new relationships: they were truly historic. We always talk about the real conflict between Israelis and Arabs, but we are seeing that narrative change, and these accords have been central. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, and my noble friend Lord Polak that the work being done by Liam Fox and his team is very much part and parcel of our thinking. The accords formed the discussions in bilateral conversations I have had with Bahrain, Morocco and the UAE. Equally, I assure noble Lords that we have had strategic dialogues with all these countries, either in that country or here, led by either the Foreign Secretary or me. In all these respects, the Abraham accords have been pivotal to where we stand and the role we play.
Several noble Lords raised the issue of the Negev courts. This has indeed been part and parcel of our engagement and conversations with the United States and all those participating, including the likes of Morocco, which is to host the next key meeting. We have also scoped where the UK can really add value, including on common areas relating to climate. I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, that we can use the opportunity of COP 28 in the UAE to again demonstrate our commitment in this respect.
As I said, this week, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary visited Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Importantly, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the right reverend Prelate reflected on this. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said, it was an opportunity to mark the 75th anniversary of the strong UK-Israeli bilateral relationship and our close collaboration across a range of priorities. My right honourable friend engaged with both the Prime Minister of Israel and my dear friend the Israeli Foreign Minister, Eli Cohen. The relationship includes extensive security and defence co-operation, which continues to safeguard the UK and Israel’s national security, as well as our ambitious science, technology and sustainability partnerships, epitomised by our UK-Israel tech hub. I have a really positive story from when I visited Israel. One city that I think the noble Lord, Lord Collins, did not get to was Haifa, where there is a real demonstration of technology and community cohesion working so well.
The right reverend Prelate reminded us about the challenge we all face not just internationally but domestically. What happens in that part of the world—in the Middle East—plays out in the United Kingdom. I put on record my absolute abhorrence of those who seek to use anti-Semitism or Islamophobia and divide communities. That is not our way, and it should not be the way anywhere in the world. We will continue to stress that. That rhetoric has rightly been condemned by this Government—by me and my colleagues.
During his visit to Israel, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary met key leaders but also community leaders. He also made clear the UK’s position on the Middle East peace process and called on both Israelis and Palestinians to take meaningful actions and steps forward, first and foremost, to reduce tensions and secure peace. If we do not reduce tensions, we will see a continuation of the current tragic trajectory of loss of life on both sides. Stability leads to security, and security feeds economic prosperity.
As I said, the Abraham accords were historic and remain so. In March this year, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary signed the UK-Israeli bilateral road map with his counterpart, Foreign Minister Cohen. The historic significance of the Abraham accords is rightly in that document—their potential to nurture profound advancements for security, coexistence, prosperity and peace for the region and all its peoples. The road map also sets out our shared ambition to strengthen our partnership with Israel, boost our economic, security and technology ties, advance our co-operation on the environment and climate change and leverage our combined strengths to address global health challenges.
The UK also continues to work with other Abraham accord countries on some of these priorities. We work with partners across the region, including those who are yet to join or sign agreements with Israel. We believe that we need to build on the positive and historic progress made at the Negev summit in March 2022. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, talked about his visit. I am always keen to meet, so we will of course schedule in a meeting with the delegation that went.
However, we are negotiating positive relationships with all countries. In Israel alone, we have started negotiations on an upgraded trade agreement and our tech hub has now facilitated hundreds of innovative partnerships. Today, Israel supplies one in seven of all medicines to the NHS.
While my noble friend Lord Polak is a great advocate for dedicated resources in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, I assure him of two things immediately. He has a very dedicated Foreign Secretary and I hope, with all humility, he would also recognise a dedicated Minister who is absolutely committed to the Abraham accords. Equally, from today’s debate we can see the dedication across your Lordships’ House to ensuring that the Abraham accords are not just sustained but strengthened, and that they deliver. My noble friend Lord Godson sought to interject, and I regret that he arrived late; but I know that he, too, is committed to the important actions we see with the Abraham accords.
Whenever I hear the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Stone, he gives a positive picture and his experience is well documented. He remarked that the Abraham accords are a great opportunity for the region. I agree. He said that we want to explore these opportunities for regional co-operation and development. I agree. We can all commit to this co-ordinating with the emerging regional architecture in the areas of security, stability and economic progress. We continue to work with Israel through the British Israel investment group, exploring opportunities to combine UK and Israeli expertise to tackle technological and sustainability issues across the Middle East.
On the other Abraham accord countries, I have already alluded to the extensive programmes, visits and engagements we have had. In December 2020, the UK Government warmly welcomed the normalisation of relations between Israel and Morocco. We also value the normalisation of relations with the UAE, Bahrain and Sudan that the accords enabled. The accords have led to a substantial increase in trade, as my noble friend Lord Polak highlighted, between all the countries. Just this month, Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen visited Bahrain further to strengthen economic and cultural tries.
I can report to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, who has had to leave, the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, that we are very much committed to this. Earlier today, I had a very good meeting with the Deputy Foreign Minister of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and part of our wide-ranging discussion was on the important support that the United Kingdom lends to normalisation between Saudi Arabia and Israel. We are working very closely in several respects.
However, we must not forget the importance of current Israeli peace agreements, such as those with the Kingdom of Jordan and Egypt, which are crucial partners and neighbours of Israel. We have seen great benefit to all these countries. Great courage and conviction were shown by the leaders of Israel, Egypt and Jordan in signing peace agreements, and we must ensure that they too deliver. That is part of the security and stability for resolving the Palestinian issue.
My noble friend Lord Polak and the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, talked about encouraging other countries. Of course, we are committed to that. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, that we are equally committed to finding a lasting solution to the current conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. This month is the 30thanniversary of the Oslo accords, a moment of hope that showed us what is possible in the peace process, and we are committed to that.
I thank all noble Lords for their insightful and expert contributions. We believe that the Abraham accords have generated new momentum and have brought greater stability and security to so many. The UK is committed to ensuring that normalisation delivers benefits for the Palestinian people. It was a historic milestone that brings us closer to the goal of shared prosperity and peace throughout the region.
I shall end with a personal anecdote which my noble friend Lord Polak knows all too well. My noble friend Lord Hannan talked about the prophet Abraham. I remember as a born-and-bred Brit Muslim by faith attending a Church of England school, returning home looking rather confused and asking my mother “What is Judaism?” Like all good mothers, she gave me something to eat, and after food for the stomach, she gave me food for thought. She said: “Tarik, when we build a house, we lay a foundation, then we put in the walls, and then we lay the roof on top of that house. As Muslims, we believe the foundation of our faith is Judaism. Without the foundations of Judaism, the walls of Christianity would not have been erected and without the walls of Christianity, the roof of Islam would not have completed what we call the house of Abraham. The other doors and windows represent other faiths and beliefs and how, ultimately, to find peace, security, stability and progress, we must come together in the house of God”. In that spirit, on the occasion of the Jewish new year, Rosh Hashanah, I, too, wish everyone of the Jewish faith here in the UK and across the world shanah tovah u'metukah.
Health: Osteoporosis and Fractures
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Black of Brentwood
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to improve access to, and quality of, services in England for people with osteoporosis and those at risk of fractures, including Fracture Liaison Services.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I note my interest as co-chair of the APPG on osteoporosis. I am incredibly grateful to all colleagues who have stayed late today to take part in this important debate. Osteoporosis is an urgent public health crisis; half of women over 50 and a fifth of men will suffer fractures due to the condition. Osteoporosis weakens bones, so they break after simple everyday occurrences: a cough, a fall, even a hug from grandchildren can be enough to cause a debilitating fracture with often life-changing consequences. I saw this at close hand with my own mother, the last years of whose life were blighted by this cruel disease. It was diagnosed and treated too late, robbing her of her independence and, above all, quality of life because of multiple fractures.
Such fractures are no minor inconvenience; they are the fourth-worst cause of premature death and disability in the UK. As many people die of fracture-related causes as of lung cancer or diabetes. Fractures are also the second-highest driver of bed occupancy in the NHS. Today, they cost the health and social care system £4.6 billion. By 2030, this will edge towards £6 billion as we all live longer. Furthermore, fractures account for 2.62 million sick days annually in the UK, and spinal fractures in particular are a significant cause of older workers exiting the workforce in their 50s and 60s—figures of which the Treasury should take careful note.
But it need not be that way, as osteoporosis is treatable with safe, effective therapies that are highly affordable for the NHS. We do not need a miracle cure; the medicines already exist to halt the progress of the condition. The newest therapy can even rebuild bones. The stark problem is simply that we are overlooking 90,000 people every year who desperately need these drugs, because we are falling behind the rest of the world on modern diagnostics. The key to all of this is fracture liaison services—or FLS—which are the world standard for diagnosing osteoporosis early, straight after the first break, so that life-changing spine and hip fractures can be prevented.
In our 2021 inquiry, the APPG found that FLS have an unrivalled record in identifying people who need treatment. That is up to 95% of at-risk patients in a local population being put on a treatment plan and monitored so that they stay on their medication. Yet, incredibly, only half of NHS trusts in England have them. In areas without FLS, people are fixed up in A&E and forgotten about. They have their first break mended, but no one assesses them for osteoporosis and the disease is left to continue its deadly path. These are the people who present later with devastating hip and spinal fractures.
That is why 88 Members of this House have endorsed the better bones campaign that has run for the last two months in the Sunday Express. Week by week, in partnership with the Royal Osteoporosis Society, the paper has been setting out the enormous opportunities FLS can deliver. I take this opportunity to thank the Sunday Express and praise it for its fantastic coverage. The campaign calls for all areas to have quality FLS, for the provision of a very modest amount of funding to set them up and for a new national specialty adviser in the NHS to drive the step change we need. The level of support for the campaign has been staggering, demonstrating the public, professional and political demand for FLS. As noble Lords know, it is rare that such a wide coalition comes together in full and passionate agreement.
Already, 240 parliamentarians across the UK have backed the campaign, along with seven royal medical colleges. Their president spoke powerfully as part of the campaign on the role FLS can play in reducing waiting lists, freeing up operating theatres and releasing terrible pressure on A&E. The representative bodies for care home providers and ambulance workers have joined the call, along with 42 other charities and organisations, and business leaders and trade unions have joined forces because they know that FLS can help keep people in work.
The stark truth is that 31,000 hip fractures can be prevented over the next five years if we make FLS universal and high quality. We would stop treating the symptoms and prevent the damage in the first place. Today, we are spending money the wrong way around, managing the costs of failure rather than preventing harm in the first place. To coin a phrase, that is voodoo economics. Hip fractures are the most costly fragility fractures to treat: the average length of stay in hospital is three weeks, and a million acute hospital bed days are taken up by patients every year. Yet half the people with a hip fracture have suffered a previous fracture, which could have flagged them as being at risk and led to prevention. But, of course, they needed an FLS to do the flagging.
That can all change. If we front-end just 1.5% of our current spend on fixing hip fractures into setting up an FLS in every area, we can prevent a tenth of hip fractures happening. That is 31,000 people’s lives changed for the better, around 8,000 of whom would otherwise have died shortly after injury. Ending the postcode lottery for FLS would cost just £27 million per year in additional funding but have a total benefit of £440 million over five years. FLS, which break even in just 18 to 24 months—another point that the Treasury should note—deliver return on investment of roughly £3.26 for every pound invested. Is £27 million not just a rounding error in the grand scheme of NHS budgets compared with the £4.6 billion cost of unprevented fractures today?
For the population, the benefits of FLS would be vast, with 74,000 fractures prevented by 2028. It would also release 750,000 hospital bed days, which must be worth doing. If the Prime Minister wants to meet his pledge to reduce hospital waiting lists, this would be an easy win. In fact, I doubt he can do so without it. It would be a win for patients and their families, who have to care for so many of those suffering, for the hard-pressed NHS and for the taxpayer.
I know that the Government support the FLS model: NHS England has signalled to integrated care boards that they are a good thing. But there is nothing holding ICBs and trusts accountable for their delivery. That is why we are flatlining. The hard power of NHS England KPIs in 63 other areas is crowding out fracture prevention. Why would a commissioner spend £1 on something that the Government say may be a good idea when that pound is pulled away from 63 other areas in which they are publicly held accountable by NHS England and Ministers? These stubborn factors have led to fracture prevention flatlining since the APPG—I am pleased to see so many members of it here—published its report in 2021. There has not been a single percentage point of improvement: 90,000 people are missing out, which is 90,000 lives at risk.
The current approach has failed, and we need a step change in leadership from Ministers. A very modest, simple policy change, backed by limited investment, can deliver huge savings for the NHS and a significant boost for economic productivity among people in their 50s and 60s. We all want to see this, and it is of real importance to the Government. It can be a real demonstration that they are committed to the prevention elements of the long-term plan. That is vital. As our population continues to live longer, which is fantastic, broken bones caused by osteoporosis are a demographic time bomb. Without urgent action, a longer life will not be a better life.
This is a big strategic challenge for the whole of our society. Bold, visionary leadership from the Government could change the terms of the game, improving the lives of tens of thousands, relieving pressure on our beloved NHS and saving money for the taxpayer. We have such a huge opportunity here to save and change lives. I implore the Government to take that opportunity.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, it is a real pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood. I thank him for all his work in this important area.
I have been a member of the Royal Osteoporosis Society for about 13 years, not because I had any family association with osteoporosis—at least, that is what I thought until March this year, when a close family member was diagnosed—but because I thought that it was a good organisation, which deserved support.
When I was a non-executive director at King’s College Hospital in the 1990s, I was asked to be the older persons’ champion. I spent considerable time looking at hospital processes and staff awareness to identify the needs of older people. The impact of falls, and the cost not only to the health services but to individual quality of life, was and is immense. That impact has to be multiplied several times if the faller has osteoporosis or is subsequently diagnosed with it.
Too often overlooked is the loss of confidence, an unwillingness to go out and an increase in fearfulness. We cannot assume that sufferers will want treatment or welcome attention, which is why it is so easy to neglect this disease and why two-thirds of people needing medication miss out.
I want to ask some questions about the Government’s women’s health strategy. In a Written Answer to the APPG’s report on the undertreatment of osteoporosis, which was referred to, the Minister Helen Whately indicated:
“The report’s recommendations are predominately being addressed through the women’s health strategy and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s guidance”.
However, osteoporosis is mentioned only 12 times in the 128-page women’s health strategy report, with no actionable plan for addressing bone health for women throughout their lives. NICE guidance is of course important, but it cannot address the need for leadership that the noble Lord, Lord Black, called for.
On 6 June, Minister Maria Caulfield said:
“NHS England is expanding fracture services for high-risk women with osteoporosis, and it is working to prevent falls”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/6/23; col. 668.]
Can the Minister give any examples of an area where fracture services are being expanded for high-risk women? How many of the new women’s health hubs will have arrangements for density scanning and referral to fracture liaison services?
I conclude by thanking the Sunday Express for its Better Bones campaign and the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, for initiating this debate.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, for obtaining this debate and for his work on the APPG on Osteoporosis and Bone Health.
Osteoporosis has a huge impact, especially on women and not least as they get older. As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Black, fractures caused by osteoporosis affect 50% of women aged over 50 and a fifth of men. It is one of the most consequential health conditions if measured in disability and premature death. It is, in many ways, a hidden condition, since even those suffering from it may not be aware that it is the cause of some of their problems. When anyone sustains a broken bone and the trauma that caused it does not seem severe enough to have warranted a fracture, underlying osteoporosis should be considered as a vulnerability factor and addressed before more fractures and disability arise.
A friend of mine in her 60s took a relatively minor tumble during a 10-pin bowling game, yet sustained a fracture. As a doctor, she was alert to the possibility of osteoporosis and appropriate investigations showed that she was indeed suffering from the condition. This is not an unusual story and I have no doubt that many other noble Lords in this debate will rightly flag up the high incidence, especially among older women.
However, a theme that I suspect may receive a little less attention is how spinal fractures from osteoporosis affect people of working age, contrary to the misconception that it is just about hip fractures in older people. The first time I came across the situation of a spinal fracture was when I was working in Belfast in the 1970s, in what was then Northern Ireland’s only psychosexual clinic. One day, one of my patients, who in those days we described as transsexual—we would now call them transgender—arrived in a wheelchair. A previous clinician had prescribed steroids as part of their gender transition process, and the consequence was a crumbling of some of their spinal bones from the resulting steroid-induced osteoporosis. My patient was now coming to see me in a wheelchair with spinal fractures.
More recent decades have seen a massive increase—we are not really sure why—in the number of people suffering from a whole range of autoimmune diseases. These often require treatment with steroids. Both patients and their healthcare professionals need to be constantly aware not just of the symptoms of the disorders, but of the potential sequelae of their medical treatment. One of those is steroid-induced osteoporosis, resulting in fractures that lead to disability and problems in employment.
The Treasury is currently looking for ways to keep older workers in the workforce, and recently committed £400 million for the same. Apart from looking to the health budget to address osteoporosis, will the Minister explore whether some of this £400 million could be devoted to investment in diagnostics and treatment for osteoporosis, so having a significant impact on keeping people at work by raising the alert level on osteoporosis?
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I declare that I am president of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy and that I chair the Commission on Alcohol Harm.
We must all appreciate the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, for having secured this very important debate. Osteoporosis is predicted to cost the UK health service £2.2 billion by 2025, so I want to focus on the very early part of the prevention pathway. With age, fragility fractures become more common, particularly in the long bones of the arms and legs and in the vertebrae. These bones are made up of a scaffolding of less dense and trabecular, and therefore less heavy, bone, where about 26% of bone is remodelled every year. Old bone is gobbled up by osteoclasts, and osteoblasts, under the influence of signalling cells, lay down a scaffolding of unmineralised osteoid, which then becomes fragilely mineralised as the new bone solidifies. As we have just heard, many hormones—proteins, vitamin D, calcium—all influence this process. When imbalanced, prolonged osteoclast activity gobbles up more bone and the bone becomes increasingly fragile.
In osteoporosis, this bone loss in the long bones and the vertebrae is particularly evident. Bone mass declines over time, accelerated by smoking and moderate to high alcohol intake, as well as by illness and its treatment, such as some cancer treatments and treatments with steroids, as we have heard. Gut disease, diabetes and chronic kidney disease all impair absorption of calcium and magnesium, as do some of the indigestion drugs so commonly taken across the population and anti-epileptic drugs, which impede the absorption of nutrients required for bone growth.
No one would advocate not treating this serious condition, but all is worsened by physical inactivity. Preserving skeletal muscle with exercise increases bone strength and slows the development of osteoporosis, as well as improving balance, thereby reducing the risk of falls. A diet rich in fruit and vegetables, with an increased protein intake, helps maintain muscle mass and bone strength.
Yet, we are a nation of inactivity, with 36% of the adult population physically inactive. Our healthcare costs related to inactivity are the third highest across 15 nations in western Europe, running at £20.53 per person in the UK, compared to £5.11 in Finland or £12.25 in France, which is near the middle of group. When bone has become fragile, early treatments, as we have heard, can lessen the chance of fragility fractures and prove cost effective, but prevention through exercise and healthy eating is essential. It is never too late to start.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Black, for initiating this debate. I have long been involved with the Royal Osteoporosis Society and, in the short time available to me, I am going to have to gallop through what I want to say.
As has been part of the campaign in the Sunday Express, I am going to set out the reasons why a national leadership on osteoporosis and fracture prevention within the NHS is essential. Either a national clinical director or, at the very least, a national speciality adviser will enable us to have a strong, visible leadership. There is already a long list of 41 leadership roles within NHS England for virtually every condition—from long Covid to flu, from tobacco addition to eye care—and it seems to me the fact that fracture prevention is not mentioned on that list sends a clear message to local commissioners that it is not a priority.
Surely that is wrong. When you consider—as the noble Lords, Lord Black and Lord Alderdice, mentioned—that half of women over 50 will have a fracture due to osteoporosis and that these fractures are the fourth worst cause of disability and premature death in the UK today, it is a no-brainer that osteoporosis and fracture prevention should be represented with national leadership. I am aware that it is felt that the present NHS national director for musculoskeletal conditions includes osteoporosis in the portfolio, but the existing leadership bandwidth is extremely stretched, and osteoporosis is such a distinct specialism, so even if it continues in the MSK basket, in my book there is still a very strong case for a national speciality adviser.
From what I have learnt, good intentions at national level are failing to filter down across ICSs, leading to commissioners’ awareness being extremely low when it comes to the financial benefits brought by increasing FLSs. We need a specialistic leader in NHS England, properly resourced to get the job done. For over a year, the ROS has indicated that it will part fund such a role, surely an offer that NHS England should embrace. Rumours are that there is a freeze on recruitment, but that appears to have been lifted, as there is a recent advert for two new clinical director roles—so a place for us. On what possible NHS England criterion can a condition which affects so many people and costs so many years of healthy life and creates such a strain on public services possibly be allowed to continue?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Black, for introducing this debate. As has been clear, the Government have simply passed the buck on this. The Written Answer from the noble Lord, Lord Markham, told me that:
“NHS England does not have a specific budget … The Department continues to work with NHS England on the consideration and implementation of musculoskeletal policy, including Fracture Liaison Services”.
That means no national action, and it is not good enough.
It is not enough just to highlight NICE guidelines and the Getting It Right First Time programme which has led to huge gaps in coverage. As we have heard, only half of English trusts have fracture liaison services and chronic underinvestment means that, even where services exist, performance is below par. High-quality services can identify 95% of at-risk patients, compared to a quarter using other non-specialist services. The Government need to take concrete, immediate action. All involved, including professionals, know we need these specialist services, with bodies representing over 650,000 doctors and nurses supporting the Better Bones campaign.
But, as we heard, locally, commissioners have poor awareness of osteoporosis and the benefits of fracture prevention. As we heard, they often wrongly think that investment in these services takes time to pay off; in fact, they break even within two years. However, the catch is that the savings occur in a different part of the health service from where the money is spent. So, without a government mandate, money simply will not be ring-fenced and allocated.
In Wales, the Health Minister, our former colleague my noble friend Lady Morgan of Ely, mandated all seven Welsh health boards to ensure 100% coverage of fracture liaison services by this time next year, and she set up a government-led taskforce to help meet that deadline. That shows how strong leadership can improve and save the lives of tens of thousands of people, particularly older women—I had better declare an interest.
The Royal Osteoporosis Society does an amazing job, as do thousands of clinicians and carers, but this urgent issue needs government resolve and leadership. Yes, it needs resources, but it also needs investment to save not just money but pain, discomfort and the diminished quality of life that fractures cause. As the noble Lord, Lord Black, said, these are no minor inconveniences. We live longer, which is great, but we need to live longer healthier, and this issue can make a difference. A clear mandate from Westminster is needed for English ICSs to prioritise fracture liaison services.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and I applaud my noble friend Lord Black for securing this important debate and for his work in the APPG. Like many noble Lords, I suspect—indeed like my own mother, who suffered from this pernicious disease for decades, causing her much pain, misery and distress—I speak as someone who has this inherited condition as well.
The example of my mother was actually a benefit, in that I was diagnosed very early. Spending 10 years on HRT did little, and alendronic acid has done much, although I am out of time on that, so, for now, I am successfully keeping my density levels stable with load-bearing exercise and vitamin D. However, not everyone is so lucky: osteoporosis is asymptomatic—I never suffered from any breaks—so, until fragility fractures occur, it is often not diagnosed. So I am fully supportive of any mechanism by which fellow sufferers can be identified as early as possible.
Today, we heard of the need for, and the clear benefits of, fracture liaison services. I welcome Minister Maria Caulfield’s recent commitment, in the Sunday Express, to explore setting up more fracture liaison services and to say more before the end of this year.
According to the ROS, the amount of money needed to fill the gaps in population coverage and the quality of FLS in England is very modest: just £27 million per annum. This is out of a total annual spend in the NHS of £180 billion. We can give everyone over 50 access to an FLS, and it will improve the quality of all these bodies so that they can deliver well against the quality standards monitored by the Royal College of Physicians.
We all recognise the difficult economic environment, but there is a clear need for a national catalyst to get things moving. The Royal Osteoporosis Society suggested a capped two-year transformation budget of £54 million to pump-prime FLSs to become universal across England. This will light the spark so that we can have change. Then, after those first two years, the services can be absorbed into ICSs as “business as usual” within conventional funding channels, overseen by ICBs, when the benefits materialise. This offers a pragmatic way for the Government and NHS England to catalyse the change in an affordable way. It reflects perfectly the principles in the long-term plan, replacing cash badly spent on fixing avoidable injuries with sensible investment in prevention.
The ROS also suggested several other approaches, and there are many ways to create change in this area, with a quicker pay-off than officials might expect. The Better Bones campaign has shown that the national support for FLS is only growing. Rather than going round in circles, can we now take action to make it happen? Will the Minister please meet with the ROS to discuss these proposals?
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, my 87 year-old mother Yasmin lives in Dehradun in north India, in the foothills of the Himalayas. She has had severe osteoporosis and osteoarthritis—a point that has not been made is that many sufferers of osteoporosis also suffer from osteoarthritis. In India, of the hundreds of millions of Indians over the age of 50, it is estimated that at least 20% are women with osteoporosis, so it is a major public health problem with Indian women.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, has said, osteoporosis-related fractures are associated with substantial pain and suffering. My mother, fortunately, was diagnosed very early. The gold-standard diagnosis is the dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry DXA. However, very few of these machines are found in India.
This is a global phenomenon: 54 million people in the United States have osteoporosis; women are four times more likely to develop it than men; in Italy, its expense is €10 billion, and in Spain the burden of fragility fractures was estimated at €3 billion; in the Netherlands, the burden of fractures will increase by 30% to over €1 billion.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Black, for initiating this debate. As he noted, the condition is asymptomatic until fragility fractures take place. It is estimated that there are around 180,000 fractures presenting each year as a result of osteoporosis. This is a huge number. There are GPs who spot it, and, of course, fracture liaison services. I was shocked to discover that only 63 out of 123 NHS trusts—just over 50%—were able to confirm that they have an FLS, whereas 100% in Scotland and Northern Ireland do. Could the Minister confirm why 100% of NHS trusts do not have these FLS services?
There seems to be a lack of the DXA scanners, which I mentioned earlier. From May 2023, 66,469 patients were waiting for these scans, which is 11.2% more than in May 2022. Why can we not have more of these scanners available throughout? Why can there not be a public health campaign about bone health—far more than is taking place now—to make people aware of it? The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, made the very important point that there should be much more awareness and encouragement of physical activity and access to physiotherapy. I have seen this first-hand with my mother, who suffers so much pain that she has access to physiotherapy. Do we give enough access to physiotherapy? The conclusion is that detection and prevention have to be the way ahead.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood on securing this debate on an issue very close to my heart, as someone who lives with the bone condition osteogenesis imperfecta, to give brittle bones its medical term, which forced me to spend much of my childhood in a hospital bed. The cost-effective proposal that my noble friend highlighted constitutes a win-win for people faced with my condition, OI, and osteoporosis.
Sticking with my condition for a moment, I understand from bone expert Professor Kassim Javaid, that there were 16,245 hospital admissions for OI patients between 2014 and 2018, with a total cost to the NHS of £24,052,451. Yet, incredibly, OI is not listed as a condition on the NHS website. You can be in hospital and get a diagnosis, go home and look at the NHS list of conditions and see that the condition you have just been diagnosed with supposedly does not exist. How unhelpful for patients and their families looking to manage the condition and reduce fracture risk. I would be really grateful if my noble friend could have that simple but cost-effective anomaly corrected.
I turn specifically to osteoporosis, which people with my condition often go on to develop. I am not going to rehearse the arguments that have been so excellently and eloquently made by my noble friend and others. The key point for me, as for my noble friend, is value for money, so I ask the Minister to give one example of bigger bangs for bucks than investing £27 million in the urgent rollout of fracture liaison services, when the ROI is £3.26 in savings made for every £1 spent. To its credit, Mid and South Essex Integrated Care System has shown what can be done at the working level; now we need it in Government. As the Royal Osteoporosis Society has made clear in its excellent campaign with the Sunday Express, 41—that is, all other—health authorities have yet to act, so we urgently need that top-down mandate.
I finish with this question to the Minister: it may not be a medical term, but does he agree with me and my noble friend Lady Chisholm that this is a classic case of a no-brainer?
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, for securing the debate and to the Royal Osteoporosis Society for meeting me recently.
In the short time available, I shall focus on an aspect that many speakers have already raised: fracture liaison services. I was struck by looking at the Royal College of Physicians database of fracture liaison services, which has a map showing vividly just how variable the provision is across England. We have a protocol that we know both improves patient outcomes and is ultimately less expensive for the NHS, as the noble Lord, Lord Black, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, have pointed out to us, and we have it working well in some areas—the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, has just given us an example of places where it is—but we do not seeing it rolling out everywhere in a timely way.
I wonder how the Minister feels about those areas of England where it is not rolling out. Is he disappointed, frustrated, irritated or all of the above? We should be frustrated, irritated and disappointed that people in England are not getting the service that will mean that they have fewer negative health outcomes and that we will all save on the NHS budget as they get cheaper care, rather than more expensive care further down the track.
I turn to the potential fixes, and we have discussed some of those today. How long will it be before the department intervenes more directly? I hope the Minister can talk about the kind of interventions that it is thinking of. My understanding is that the provision of a fracture liaison service is relatively straightforward in health terms. It requires trained nurses, administrators, access to systems and some tools, such as the scanners that the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, referred to, but these are not at the cutting edge or at least the most expensive end of what is needed in the health service, so it is certainly achievable.
Building on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, about a national specialist leader, that seems to be essential. I would perhaps be even more aggressive: there needs to be someone whose responsibility is to get us from 51% to 100%. All they should think about when they wake up in the morning is, “How do I get to 100% coverage of fracture liaison services?” They should praise the best and make the worst feel very uncomfortable for not doing their job. They should help to build business cases for ICBs that, for whatever reason, have not built their own business case, to demonstrate to them how they would be stupid not to do so—and, if the ICBs still do not do it, make sure that everyone knows they are not doing it, because the evidence is there. They should look at creative ways to unblock any barriers and quite simply not accept no for an answer.
I hope the Minister can say that the department is thinking creatively about how it can put that kind of structure in place, where incentives exist to get from 51% to 100% in the shortest time possible.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for this important debate, for his excellent introduction and for his work with the APPG. We have heard a number of speakers who are very active in the group, so ably co-chaired by the noble Lord and my colleague in the Commons, Judith Cummins MP. She has led the charge in the Commons campaign for improved access and quality of services, as has the noble Lord here in this House.
The APPG’s two reports, on the FLS postcode lottery and setting out the role that primary care needs to play in identification, treatment and care, have been landmark reports in raising awareness among parliamentarians and NHS leaders about osteoporosis and the importance of bone health. We look forward to its further report later this year on bone density scanning, following the public evidence-taking session.
I also thank the Royal Osteoporosis Society for its very succinct key facts briefing for today. It makes for pretty stark reading, as we heard from noble Lords. It includes the fracture treatment gap, which leads to thousands of people each year missing out on anti-osteoporosis medications; the patching up of people in existing fracture clinics without underlying osteoporosis being diagnosed; and the enormous burden of preventable fractures on the NHS, which mean that half of hospitalised hip fracture patients who have had a previous fracture could have been flagged up as being at risk.
On the absolutely key issue of why only 51% of NHS trusts provide FLS, I note the response from the noble Lord, Lord Markham, to the Oral Question on osteoporosis early detection on 19 January, in which he emphasised strongly that all ICBs have the responsibility to roll out these services “or their equivalent”, and that the others—the 49% that have not done so—had “different versions of it”. I look forward to the Minister’s explanation today of exactly what those different equivalent versions comprise and how their outputs are measured and assessed for fracture treatment and prevention. Why is the treatment gap so wide and shocking?
For the record, the ROS warns of the barriers to ICSs in seizing the missed opportunities. It notes a lack of a central directive through the standard NHS contracts in emphasising fracture prevention; a general lack of awareness of the impact of fractures and the cost benefits of secondary fracture prevention; the patchy clinical leadership in drafting business cases; and the short-termism in business planning, including the break-even issue that has been mentioned. I would be interested to hear what steps the Government are taking to address those issues.
On 19 January, noting the impact of osteoporosis affecting half of women over 50, my noble friend Lady Merron drew attention to the UK primary care base trial on screening for osteoporosis for older people. It examined a systematic approach to identifying older women in fracture prevention, leading to a 28% reduction in hip fracture risk, thereby significantly reducing costs and seeing increased adherence to treatment. It is an exciting trial, and I would welcome further information on it from the Minister.
Finally, I will briefly follow up on a previous issue I raised about research on osteoporosis. Can the Minister say what support the Government have provided to the ROS’s research academy and its potentially game-changing road map, which charts the key steps for researching a cure for this extremely debilitating disease?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood for bringing forward this Question for Short Debate. As chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Osteoporosis and Bone Health, he has long been a champion for those with osteoporosis. I thank him for sharing his experience of looking after his own mother over many years.
My noble friend is absolutely right that osteoporosis represents a growing challenge, particularly for older people. In the UK, it is estimated that over 3 million people have osteoporosis and over 500,000 fragility fractures occur every year. People of all ages want to enjoy good health for as long as possible, but remaining independent often depends on health and social care services being effective enough to support them wherever they live. Many people of working age also suffer preventable fractures, with an estimated 2.6 million sick days taken every year in the UK due to osteoporotic fractures. Studies show that over 22% of the population aged 50 to 64 will suffer from a fracture at some stage.
To that end, this year’s spring Budget announced a package of measures to support individuals at risk of, or experiencing, musculoskeletal conditions, including by making best use of digital health technologies to support people to manage symptoms better and to increase mobility, and by designing and scaling-up musculoskeletal community hubs, thereby expanding access to community-based services and delivering physical activity interventions. These will be effective as exercising regularly reduces the rate of bone loss, lowering the risk of fractures and falls. Given that good work improves health and well-being, the spring Budget also announced measures to support people with musculoskeletal conditions to remain in or return to work, including by integrating employment advisers into musculoskeletal pathways, building on the success of the NHS talking therapies programme, and piloting the WorkWell partnerships programme to support disabled people and people with health conditions who want to work.
The Government are also undertaking two consultations to understand how best to increase employer use of occupational health services. Osteoporosis disproportionately affects women, who often face a one-size-fits-all health system that does not consider their specific health needs. The women’s health strategy for England set out plans to achieve the 10-year ambition for women to have improved outcomes with musculoskeletal conditions, including through increasing early identification and treatment of those at risk, which many noble Lords pointed to in the debate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, asked what the Government are doing. We are proposing to announce, in the forthcoming Autumn Statement, a package of prioritised measures to expand the provision of fracture liaison services and improve their current quality. NHS England is also setting up a fracture liaison service expert steering group to explore the expansion and improvement in quality of services for people with osteoporosis and those potentially at risk of fractures. We also have the major conditions strategy. I assure noble Lords that we are committed to making sure that people get the best care, no matter what condition they have.
Last month, we set out our initial plans for the major conditions strategy, with the case for change and strategic framework. This report identifies actions to improve outcomes for individuals across six major conditions groups, including musculoskeletal conditions. It includes exploring how best to support musculoskeletal service improvement and leadership—for example, through improving collection of data. Joining up patient experiences across datasets will enable more effective commissioning of support for those with musculoskeletal conditions. It is also includes, together with NHS England, exploring further support in the provision of fracture liaison services, which many noble Lords mentioned here today. This could include identifying people at risk of further osteoporotic fragility fractures, and implementing strategies to reduce risk of future fracture, including falls, and mortality.
Fracture liaison services are key to prompt diagnosis of osteoporosis and are acknowledged as the world standard for secondary fracture prevention. According to the Royal Osteoporosis Society, for every £1 spent on fracture liaison services in the UK, the taxpayer can expect to save £3.28. By levelling up provision to cover everyone over the age of 50, we could prevent just under 5,700 fragility fractures every year, a point very well made by my noble friend Lord Black.
As noble Lords will be aware, fracture liaison services are commissioned by integrated care boards, and while we expect musculoskeletal fragility fracture and fall services to be fully incorporated into planning and decision-making, coverage is not universal, with only 50% of the country able to access services. The noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, always gives very demanding targets, 100%, and he is absolutely right to demand that. It will take time, but it is the intention to be able to do that across the way. I have noted the 100% and I look forward to discussing that in future debates.
NHS England is already working with commissioners to support the mobilisation and implementation of fracture liaison services in each area and to establish a greater number of clinics. It has provided local health systems. My noble friend Lord Black talked about leadership, and I will certainly make sure that colleagues in the department are fully aware of what he is talking about: it will certainly be considered by Ministers.
NHS England’s “getting it right first time” programme has a specific workstream on musculoskeletal health and is exploring how best to support integrated care systems in the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis. As part of this work, NHS England is reviewing pathways for secondary prevention of fragility fractures. Systematic vertebral fragility fractures and non-ambulatory fractures feature, and we will publish guidance to support local health systems to implement these pathways. The programme has also produced a draft adult orthopaedic trauma national speciality report, which includes recommendations on adopting fraction liaison services.
I turn to some specific questions. My noble friends Baroness Chisholm and Lord Shinkwin asked about having a dedicated fracture tsar. As the noble Lords will be aware, the role of the NCD as speciality adviser is to provide specialist clinical advice, and leadership to drive transformation of services for patients and support the commissioning of services. I think it is an important point to have somebody focused day in, day out, whose waking worry is to take it from 57% to 100%. I certainly will feed that one back.
The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, talked about DEXA scanners. Unfortunately, I have not got precise detail on that so I will write to the noble Lord on the specific details of that particular question.
I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and her colleagues for the work that she does on this. She reminded us that prevention is better than cure, and that physical exercise and diet throughout one’s life helps with this. I didn’t realise “gobbling up” was a technical, clinical term, but we know exactly what you mean; that is the importance of diet and exercise to keep that bone mass and muscle mass there. As the Minister always says, in one week in hospital for patients, you lose 10% of your body mass, which is a sobering thought.
I do not underestimate how painful and debilitating this silent disease is, but I am confident that real advances have been made and will continue to be made. I assure noble Lords that the Government is determined to support improving access to, and quality of, services for those with osteoporosis.
In answer to my noble friend Baroness Bloomfield, I am very happy to meet with the ROS at a time convenient, and I extend my thanks once again to noble Lords for securing this debate and for the thoughtful comments and questions.
I note, on this particular date and others, the fact that noble Lords have actually cared for, and looked after, family relatives, which gives you first-hand experience of the challenges for family and friends of people living with this difficult disease. As a noble Lord mentioned—I do not know who—the good news is we are all living longer, but the bad news is that, at some stage, we may all suffer from this terrible disease.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
Can I ask if the noble Lord is going to follow up with a letter on the questions he did not cover please? Thank you.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
Do forgive me, apologies. I have not got that information in my notes, I am afraid, so I will write to you and the noble Lords on that specific question.
House of Lords
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Introduction: Lord Rosenfield
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Employers: Fire and Rehire Tactics
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Woodley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to prevent employers from using fire and rehire tactics.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Scotland Office (Lord Offord of Garvel) (Con)
My Lords, earlier this year the Government consulted on a new statutory code of practice on fire and rehire. We are currently analysing responses to that consultation. A government response and the final version of the code will be published in spring next year. The code sets out employers’ responsibilities when seeking to change contractual terms and conditions of employment and seeks to ensure that dismissal and re-engagement is used only as a last resort.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
The code of practice as published is toothless, unfortunately. It contains no legal obligations on employers and adds only 25% to any compensation, no matter how small it may be—that is no solution. As we all know, what is needed is legislation—as there was in Australia this week—to end the scandal of fire and rehire; most decent people in this place and across the country support that view. When the Bill was proposed in the other place, the Government disappointingly ordered an unprecedented Friday three-line Whip and gerrymandered to filibuster and therefore embarrass a proper vote. I have been informed—
Lord Woodley (Lab)
With respect, I will continue. I have been informed that my Bill will not get a Second Reading. Can the Minister explain why the Government seem to be using every trick in the parliamentary playbook to prevent us even debating this much-needed change in the law?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his follow-up question. The UK labour market is strong by historical and international standards. In fact, in all employment law we are trying to get the balance right between workers’ protection and employers’ flexibility. The employment rate is at 75% right now, and wages have gone up by just short of 8% in the last year, so we think we have the balance right. The Government are taking action to ensure that this practice is a last resort. We are not banning it outright. In the code, we have measures whereby employees’ compensation in certain circumstances, as the noble Lord alluded to, can be increased by 25% if the employer has unreasonably failed to comply with the code, which is quite a big disincentive for the employer. But we believe that there are certain circumstances in which flexibility is required, so we are seeking to get the balance right.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, when we left the European Union, the Government said that they would introduce legislation to protect workers and that it would be better than in the European Union. Can he name countries in Europe where this could happen?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
As I said, when we look at the standards of employment law against our competitors in Europe, we have a strong labour market, a strong rate of employment and a long-established suite of protections for all our workers, employees and self-employed people.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, what is the assessment of the Minister’s department of how much compensation would have been received if the proposed guidance had been in force when P&O sacked hundreds of its employees? As another noble Lord said, 25% of nothing is nothing; it is all smoke and mirrors.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for raising that rather infamous case. What P&O did was illegal. It was not fire and rehire but dismiss and replace. It would remain illegal whether or not the code had been in place, and P&O has received considerable censure as a result. The code, which will come through in the spring, will give real guidance and protection to both employers and workers.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, we know that companies quite often have to close down or change their practices, either because of a competitive market or because they have been managed badly. In one-factory towns, for example, where one company is a major employer, when it has to close, are there any forums for the Government to work together with trade unions to retrain those workers who have lost their jobs to compete in the new global economy?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
This is exactly why flexibility is required, because certain changes of circumstances require the workers and managers of a company to get together with the trade unions and the directors to solve the problem through consultation and consensus, and that is generally what happens in the UK. Indeed, as my noble friend will know, we have a number of measures to help employees back into work.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, is there a code of fire and rehire for Ministers in the Government?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I welcome the noble Lord back to Questions. I think that is a very good proposal; we can put it forward to the relevant department.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, this Session has been plagued by thick Bills. To effect the change that my noble friend calls for would take only a very simple Bill. Can we expect it to be announced in the King’s Speech in November?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
As we have said clearly, we are consulting and there will be a code of practice. This practice is used very rarely. Even the TUC in 2020 indicated that only 3% of employers had used fire and rehire and only 9% of employees had experienced it even as a threat. Therefore, the code is the right way forward in this case.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, further to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, does my noble friend not think it a disgrace that a third of our Ministers on the Front Bench are unpaid and that there are instances of paid Ministers being fired and then rehired on the basis that they do the job on no salary? Should the Government not tackle this in the interests of democracy and fair dealing to our Ministers, who do such an excellent job in this House in very difficult circumstances?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My noble friend raises an interesting question—this is going off on all sorts of tangents at this point. Those of us who are in this House consider it to be a great privilege, those who are asked to serve the Government consider it a great honour, and we continue to serve the country as best we can.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
I am sure the House has a great deal of sympathy for many of the new Ministers who have come in, especially as they are not being paid. They may not recall, although I hope the Minister does, that his Government gave a promise in 2019 that an employment Bill would become an Act during the course of this Parliament. I go back to the earlier question: will the Minister say whether an employment Bill will be in the King’s Speech in November, or is this another broken promise?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
Throughout the course of this Parliament, commitments have been made around the manifesto commitments on employment given by the party on this side of the House. Over the last Parliament, six Private Members’ Bills have been brought through to enhance and protect workers’ rights. As I said, we are trying to strike the balance between workers’ protection and employers’ flexibility.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, in answer to my noble friend’s question about P&O Ferries, the Minister rightly characterised its behaviour as an illegal act. However, P&O Ferries is now economically active and out there, doing what it always did. Will the Minister undertake to do an analysis of the turnover and profit of P&O Ferries now versus the sanctions it received? If those sanctions prove to have been insufficient, as I believe they will, will the Minister undertake to increase them to prevent a repeat of that disgraceful activity?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My understanding is that the P&O case is still under consideration with the insolvency authorities, so I cannot comment further on it. Further consultation is going on, taking account of this case and specifically the difference between dismissal and redundancy. That will also be in the code of practice. P&O has received censure. It continues to operate within the laws of the United Kingdom and should be allowed to continue to do so.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, good business leaders recognise that without workers they have no business. Valuing workers, treating them with dignity and respect, and mutual trust build a dedicated, motivated workforce. Unfortunately, some employers still adopt fire and hire practices with relative impunity, disrespecting their employees’ livelihoods and well-being. In turn, that damages the reputation and profitability of their business. Do the Government think it just for workers to be treated in this manner? Why will they not stop it?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
As I indicated, only 3% of employers have ever used these tactics. The majority of good employers understand full well that the health of their company requires a happy and motivated workforce. This is a minority situation. The code of practice will give it greater clarity going forward.
Africa: Partnerships
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the Foreign Secretary’s speech on 1 August, what plans they have to deliver successful UK partnerships with countries in Africa.
Lord Mott (Con)
My Lords, His Majesty’s Government are committed to developing long-term, diverse partnerships and to strengthening our offer to African countries to help reduce poverty, tackle climate change and progress towards the UN’s sustainable development goals. Our offers provide principled partnerships, working with likeminded allies, where appropriate, on issues that matter to our African partners. Together, we will build long-lasting partnerships with African countries and institutions that will lead to a free, safer, more secure, more prosperous, healthier, greener and open continent.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s commitment to partnering with African countries to assist them to reach their full economic potential. How will the Government use the SDG summit taking place next week to set out clearly how they will overcome the linked challenges of climate, nature and development, in order to be able to keep to their commitment?
Lord Mott (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that question. The UK Government are committed to developing long-term, diverse partnerships and to strengthening our offer to Africa to reduce poverty, tackle climate change and reinvigorate progress towards the UN’s sustainable development goals. The year 2023 is the halfway point of the SDGs and, despite significant progress, sub-Saharan Africa is the most behind. The SDG summit provides an important opportunity for the world to recommit to delivering SDGs.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the Wales-Lesotho partnership, under the name Dolen Cymru? For 20 years, it has helped establish and then develop educational and health links with the people of Lesotho. It is supported by the Welsh Government. Do the UK Government co-ordinate their work in Lesotho with that organisation? If the Minister does not have the answer to hand, perhaps he could write to me.
Lord Mott (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. It will not surprise him to hear that that is not something I have in front of me. I will be more than happy to take it back to the department and to write to him, as he suggested.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, I have a particular concern about Sudan. The conflict there has now fallen off the media headlines. The cuts in overseas development aid have made a big impact there. What will partnership look like in the light of those cuts? We hope that they will one day be restored. Secondly, how are the UK’s diplomatic efforts in Sudan being reinforced at a time of greatest need?
Lord Mott (Con)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for his question. In May this year, the Minister for Development and Africa announced that the UK would provide £21.7 million in humanitarian aid for Sudan as part of our contribution at the UN Horn of Africa pledging summit. This followed an earlier announcement of £5 million to help meet the urgent needs of refugees and returnees in South Sudan and Chad. The UK is also working through the African Union-led core group to end the hostilities, to push for urgently needed humanitarian access and to secure a viable peace process.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the most recent, striking acts of African partnership has been the decision of the G20 to admit the entire African Union—all 55 members—to its councils? This is a dramatic move and a reminder of how the world has changed. Will he outline how he thinks it will affect the priorities of the G20? Has he noted that 21 of the new G20 members are Commonwealth members, with several more applying? Will he undertake that we will give maximum support to the rest of our fellow members if they wish to form a caucus within this new group?
Lord Mott (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his question. I think it will make a substantial difference to the ability of Africa’s voice to be heard at the highest possible level. The Government continue to work closely with all countries in Africa. It is to be hoped that this will deliver the changes we need.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, there was a great deal of emphasis in the Foreign Secretary’s speech in Lagos on population change. It will increase to 2 billion by 2050. Some 25% of the population of Africa will be under the age of 25. There was no comment, either in the speech or in anything that the Minister has said, about the threat that this rapid population change will pose to the economic, social and political order. Will the Minister tell the House what the UK intends to do in its relations with African countries to address this threat, particularly in the context of climate change?
Lord Mott (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. With regard to the final point made by the noble Baroness about climate change, the UK is contributing $1.8 billion for South Africa’s Just Energy Transition Partnership of the total $8.85 billion being provided by the international partners group. This includes France, Germany, the US, the UK and the EU. The UK is also backing a new project with Senegal, announced in June, which is worth €2.5 billion. We continue with our commitment to support countries with ambitious energy transition plans. We believe that is one of the ways in which we can help those countries.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, since this is the first time I have asked the Minister a question, I welcome him to his brief. For partnerships to be effective, does he agree that we need reliable and sustainable relationships? It is regrettable that in eight years of this Government there have been eight Ministers for Africa, and the last time a British Prime Minister made a bilateral visit to an African nation was five years ago. At that time, Theresa May promised that
“by 2022, I want the UK to be the G7’s number one investor in Africa”.
It is not. We have broken that promise. Does the Minister agree that, if we are to have partnerships, we first need to keep our promises?
Lord Mott (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, for his opening comments. I agree that it is vitally important that strong partnerships are established, and lasting relationships built. On trade, where partnerships are very strong, UK export finance has provided more than £3.5 billion for projects in Africa since 2020. The UK was the first non-African country to sign an agreement with the African continental free trade area. This is a signal of our readiness to generate new trade and investment opportunities for Africa and for UK business. The Prime Minister will personally host the UK-Africa summit, which aims to create opportunities for mutual prosperity, inclusive growth and job creation.
Lord Haselhurst (Con)
My Lords, just thinking of the African situation alone, is it not somewhat counterintuitive that the United Kingdom branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association should be having its budget restricted and its work made more difficult when such a positive contribution could come from there to bring some extra democracy to the continent of Africa?
Lord Mott (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his question and for his work within this organisation. It is vitally important that it continues to do that good work. Clearly, budgets in some cases have been reduced. I do not have the details in relation to that organisation regarding its budget, but I will certainly take that back to the department and write to him in the coming weeks.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the Africa Climate Summit in Nairobi on 4 September evidenced the determination of African countries to work together to set out a positive agenda for driving green growth. However, the debt burden and rising interest rates increasing the cost of borrowing from capital markets are inhibiting the huge potential for green growth in Africa. What are the Government doing across Whitehall with international partners to reform multilateral development banks so that the growth potential is fully realised?
Lord Mott (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, for his question. The UK is a partner for African countries that are disproportionately affected by climate change. I will give some examples of the work that we are doing in relation to this, which demonstrates our commitment to supporting those countries. We have ambitious energy transition plans, providing £1.8 billion of international partners group finance, and we are delivering on our commitment to double international climate finance to £11.6 billion by 2025-26. The UK has supported the “room to run” guarantee to the African Development Bank, which is expected to unlock up to £2 billion-worth of new financing for projects across the continent and £200 million to the African Development Bank and the climate action window.
Electronic Trade Documents Act 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Holmes of Richmond
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the (1) economic, and (2) environmental, benefits arising from the Electronic Trade Documents Act 2023; and what plans they have to communicate those benefits to relevant stakeholders, including small and medium-sized enterprises.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare my financial services and technology interests as set out in the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Scotland Office (Lord Offord of Garvel) (Con)
The Electronic Trade Documents Act will provide an economic boost estimated at just over £1 billion over a decade, substantially reducing paper use. We are the first G7 country to put digital and paper trade documents on an equal footing. Given the international prominence of English law, this will kick-start digitalisation globally. We advocate similar change by trading partners. We will support businesses through international trade advisers, trade and investment hubs and initiatives promoting digitalisation, including the Centre for Digital Trade and Innovation.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Electronic Trade Documents Act offers us the potential of combining our common-law tradition with our expertise in new technologies such as blockchain and our excellent financial services ecosystem? Does he agree that we must work to ensure that everybody in the business department communicates through every channel—particularly to SMEs in the UK—the opportunity that exists through this Act and, similarly, that all our missions overseas communicate to companies and politicians around the world to enable them to see the benefits of passing similar legislation? As my noble friend the Minister knows, it takes two to trade.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank my noble friend for those comments and questions. This is a quite remarkable Act. In fact, it is the only Act of Parliament that I have read from beginning to end. It is only four pages long and 1,500 words; I recommend it for its brevity and its conciseness. It simply does one thing, which is to take the architecture of 300-plus years of mercantile trading which has been done in paper form and translate that into digital to have the same legal impact. The onus is now on the Department for Business and Trade to communicate this to our SMEs, as my noble friend indicated. To that end, we are using international trade advisers and the International Chamber of Commerce, and we have set up the Centre for Digital Trade and Innovation at Teesside University. A lot of work will now be done to raise awareness of this, which will be for the great benefit of our trade.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, in reading the Act, my noble friend will have realised that reliable systems for authenticating electric trade documents is one of the central operational issues. Will the Government therefore give their full support to the International Chamber of Commerce, which I am glad he mentioned, as it did so much good work in helping to bring this Act forward? Will they also try to put together assurance for what those reliable systems look like that will help traders to trade confidently?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that. I can report that, as the Minister in this area, I have chaired a forum with the International Chamber of Commerce where we are at the forefront of this initiative. By the UK leading the way here, with G7 and others following through, this will become a standard mechanism of trade and will be followed by the new operating border and the single trade window. We will therefore be moving rapidly to 2025 and a situation where trade can be expedited across international markets to the great benefit of our economy.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, estimates suggest that this important legislation could save businesses approximately 50% in costs by moving to forms of electronic trade. The impact assessment attached to the Act had a best-estimate adoption rate of 5% in year 1 and 45% by year 10, while the highest adoption rate predictions suggested 10% in year 1 and up to 80% in year 10. The difference in extremes between these adoption rate predictions will have far-reaching consequences. Given the potential for major cost savings and increased efficiency, can the Minister reassure us that the Government will develop a clear strategy, including guidance and awareness-raising, to support stakeholders and businesses who are keen to move towards early adoption and to inform those who are not yet engaged or are unaware of the benefits of so doing?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that question. I can assure her that this is a great focus for the Department for Business and Trade. At the moment in the UK, only 10% of our SMEs are exporting. Overall, we are a great exporting nation; we have recently gone from sixth to fifth in the table, and we are second in services, so we have a strong export tradition, but we could do better among our SME community. My personal ambition is to drive that number up, and digital has a key part to play in that. There are some 280,000 SMEs exporting. We want to double that, and the digital route will be the way to do so. We have already identified 100,000 essentially new business which are born digital and born international, which will be a great boost to the SME trade. That will be a great focus for our department going forward.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, we have a virtual contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]
My Lords, in a letter to Peers in June, the Minister, the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, stated
“industry stands ready and eager to support the delivery of this Act for UK businesses of all shapes and sizes, developing guidance and standards to ensure it’s a success”.
Notwithstanding the Minister’s response, how are the Government actually working with industry, as well as others he mentioned, to ensure this? Should not we now have more detail about the implementation of the Act?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that question. That is the nub of what we are dealing with: we have passed the Act, which is a great first step, but we now need to implement it inside our ecosystem. There are going to be great advantages, some of which have already been identified in terms of cost. There are also advantages in data collection. We believe that we can greatly increase our trade finance to SMEs; currently trade finance for exporting is perhaps not the most accessible. We believe that the digital mechanism for data collecting will greatly increase the ability to access finance and reduce its cost, so we see benefits everywhere around this legislation.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, while supporting my noble friend Lord Holmes, I want to ask my noble friend the Minister two questions. The first is about the transferability back into a paper form in cases where there has to be default due to a lack of digital experience. Secondly and perhaps more importantly, given that other international bodies have not yet come on board with this very useful initiative by the British Government, is it not a good idea to confirm what nature of law is to apply in each document coming through this system?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that. The purpose and intent of the Act is to give equal weight to paper and digital proof of ownership—bills of lading, letters of credit et cetera—so they can be in either form. On the legal regime, the Bill is modelled on the United Nations law, so it comes from, as it were, a higher authority, but through custom and practice and mercantile law over the last 300 years or so, maritime law is governed largely under English law. There is therefore an easy adoption and an understanding that mercantile trade can continue under English law. As the rest of the G7 countries come forward and adopt similar legislation, I am sure we will find alignment in these matters.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, the Minister and his colleagues need to be congratulated on making sure that the UK is very much in the lead. He mentioned that the UK would encourage other countries to make sure that their systems are moved on to a digital and electronic platform. Which international organisations will he work with to ensure that this is encouraged and happens? One point puzzled me: why does Part 1 refer only to Scotland?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I will take my copy of the Act here to refer to. In terms of international bodies, this has come through the UN system and the major body we are working with to get to businesses directly is the International Chamber of Commerce. On the small jurisdictional point in relation to Scotland, under the devolution settlement Scots law needs to be separate from English law—although it is largely the same when it comes to mercantile. There is a provision in the Act to make sure there is alignment between Scotland and England.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, this Act should be a major boost to UK corporates and indeed corporates around the world. As an aside, is the Minister aware that, apparently, up to 67% of British SMEs as yet do not have a website? That is another area which the Government might wish to consider in helping to push the trading figures forward.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. The world has gone digital now and I think even that 67% are aware of that. The DBT is very much at the forefront of raising that awareness.
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991: New Breeds
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to amend the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to add new breeds, in view of recent attacks.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and refer to my interests on the register, including the fact that I am an honorary associate of the British Veterinary Association.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, we take dog attacks very seriously and are making sure that the full force of the law is applied. This ranges from lower-level interventions to more serious offences under the Dangerous Dogs Act. The Government have commissioned urgent advice on what steps they can take on dangerous dogs. As a critical first step, we are immediately convening police experts and other stakeholders to define the breed for the purposes of the Dangerous Dogs Act.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer but it is clear that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is not working as it was intended. Dog attacks are on the increase, the public are feeling threatened and the Act is putting huge pressure on veterinary professionals and animal welfare charities. Can I urge my noble friend to use his good offices to take this opportunity to have a complete overhaul of the Act; to focus not on the breed but the deed; and to look increasingly at anti-social and aggressive behaviour on the part of dog owners, which should not be tolerated?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Every single one of these attacks is a tragedy. So often, they happen in the home, and some of the people involved really should not be in charge of a dog. We are concerned about the breed that people are concerned about now, XL Bullies, because we see from the available data we have that they are disproportionately involved in serious dog attacks. There is a divergence of opinion on this. My noble friend mentions organisations that campaign on this and are unhappy about the breed-specific nature of it. They have one view; another view is that none of the fatal attacks that have taken place in recent years were carried out by a prohibited breed that was registered under the Act. We want to get this right. That is why we are talking to everyone, including the police, vets and campaign groups. We want to make sure that we are keeping people safe.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in the United States, the National Rifle Association argues—spuriously, in my view—that it is not the firearm that is the problem but the person carrying it. In this country, we control dangerous firearms and have very few mass shootings—the opposite of what we see in the United States. Does the noble Lord agree that a dangerous dog that is bred to fight and is inherently dangerous is rightfully being looked at as being banned?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I entirely understand the noble Lord’s point. Most of us who keep a dog can know its breed precisely because there is a breed registration book and it is perfectly easy to describe it. There is no evidence of how you define some of these “fighting dogs” or “status dogs”, as some people call them. I am not making some bureaucratic excuse for not taking action because we are taking action but, in order to make the law effective, if we are going to ban a breed, we have to really ban it and not allow people to get round it by having some nuance of that breed.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I was chief constable in Merseyside when a five year-old child in St Helens was murdered by one of these awful breeds. As the Minister said, there are difficulties in defining the breed; I think a Labrador can be regarded as one of these breeds on some occasions so it is really not straightforward. One of the things I instigated at the time, with the agreement of the CPS, was an amnesty for owners of illegal breeds because the main thing is to get these dogs off the streets and not leave them in position. Of course, it is hard for the owners to hand them over voluntarily because they are declaring that they are an illegal animal; it is hard for neighbours to declare it, too. At a time when the Government are considering what to do next, might they consider a national amnesty for the present illegal breeds to get the dogs off the street rather than worrying about, as has been explained, the consequences?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Lord makes a very good point. Under the Dangerous Dogs Act, there is an exemption procedure whereby the person can keep the dog provided that they stick to various conditions, such as it being taken out on a lead and wearing a muzzle. Of course, that does not solve the problem entirely. We want to see these dogs removed. There are ways of doing that and very serious penalties, including up to 14 years in prison, for people who break those rules. We are talking to the National Association of Police Chiefs and making sure that we are doing everything in the realm of the possible but our priority is to get dangerous dogs off the streets.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend is taking such urgent action on this. I suggest that he should be more radical when looking at the Dangerous Dogs Act. It is time that that was sent to the knacker’s yard and a new system instituted altogether. I say this with some regret because I was the one who introduced it in the other place in the first place.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I know that the Act is sometimes held up as a poster boy for the malign effect of knee-jerk legislative reaction to a terrible incident. However, as I said, the pit bull terrier, the Japanese Tosa, the Dogo Argentino and the Fila Brasileiro—the four species banned under the Act—are not breeds that have been involved in these awful attacks. One could therefore argue that there may have been more attacks if they had not been banned, but we are looking to make this effective and we want urgent action.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, the phrase that there are no bad dogs, only bad owners, is patchy as breeds vary considerably. Spaniels are excellent at identifying victims in earthquakes; border collies are excellent at working with sheep. Labradors are brilliant assistance dogs; Alsatians and Rottweilers are brilliant guard dogs. For all, it is part of their inherent nature. The DDA should be reviewed bearing this in mind. Will the Minister give assurances that, if such a review takes place, it takes account of more evidence than just a single video clip?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I absolutely can give that assurance. We in government are lay people in this. There are real experts who understand animal behaviour and lawyers who can advise us on what will stand up in court. If we are to review this Act, we must make sure that we do not lose any benefits we have had from it and that we keep this House informed of every stage of the process.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, in view of the great increase in pet dogs in recent years, particularly during the pandemic, should we not reconsider reintroducing dog licences?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I love agreeing with my noble friend but I cannot in this case. It was a very bureaucratic document that cost more than it amounted to and was no more than a tax on dog owners. It would not deal with this problem effectively because the people who keep the predominant dog species involved in these attacks would not, by and large, have bothered getting a licence anyway.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, we know that the American bully is easily recognisable but concerns have been raised that it would be hard to define it within the framework of the Dangerous Dogs Act as it exists at the moment. The breed is not recognised by the Kennel Club, for example. The Minister and other noble Lords have talked about the importance of replacing or updating the legislation. It is not working at all for cross-breeds. The Minister has talked about the fact that many of the attacks are not done by dogs that are covered by the legislation, so I really do urge him to commit to updating the legislation because I cannot see how we will move forward without it.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am very happy to have a discussion with the noble Baroness and any others about what precisely they mean by updating this legislation. Many campaign groups, such as the Dogs Trust, want us to get rid of its breed-specific nature as part of any reform. I am concerned about that because it might remove some of the elements that work, but we are open to those discussions.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
My Lords, two weeks ago, the “Today” programme interviewed a leading professor, I think from Chicago University, who specialises in the behaviour of dangerous animals in contact with human beings. She said that, in America, they are breeding these specific dogs and changing their genes to increase the chance that they will fight. She was asked for her opinion—“What would you do?”—and said, “Ban them totally”.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I totally understand my noble friend’s point; that may well be what comes out of this urgent review. It is of concern right at the top of the Government. He is absolutely right that these species are bred for purposes that we do not want to see in this country, in our homes and certainly not on our streets. Since 2022, there have been 16 fatalities, nine of which involved some form of cross-breed bully dog. The clue is in the name.
Bishop’s Stortford Cemetery Bill [HL]
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, I take this opportunity as the chair of the Opposed Private Bill Committee to thank its other members: the noble Lord, Lord Reay, the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Willis of Summertown. On behalf of the entire committee, I thank those who supported us: Chris Salmon Percival, Clerk of Private Bills, who stepped in to clerk when the previously designated clerk was unable to attend; Che Diamond, the assistant counsel to the Chairman of Committees; Mike Wright, the private and hybrid Bill manager; and Kiran Kaur, the committee operations officer.
I am happy to say that we amended the Bill in a way that improved it and was acceptable to both the presenters and the petitioner.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I will make three points. The first is to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for chairing the committee. I had never sat on an Opposed Private Bill Committee before and there is a sort of judicial element to the proceedings; we benefited from his experience and wise counsel.
Secondly, I bring to the House’s attention that this is a Bill about cemeteries and running out of space. In years to come, we will find more cemeteries in this position, so we may have further Bills of this kind.
Thirdly, the Bill involved something called the 75-year rule. I will not talk about it now, but this is something that the Law Commission may be considering and, in the fullness of time, this House may return to the subject.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, I intervene very briefly to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, and the other members of the committee for their hard work and scrutiny of this Bill. I beg to move.
Conduct Committee
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Manningham-Buller
That the Report from the Select Committee Amendments to the Code of Conduct (4th Report, HL Paper 221) be agreed to.
Baroness Manningham-Buller (CB)
My Lords, in begging to move that the fourth report of the Conduct Committee be agreed to, I shall speak also to the fifth report.
The Conduct Committee is committed to minimising the number of new editions of the Code of Conduct. These reports propose the first changes since May last year. As I have previously said at the Dispatch Box, I hope to appear here as infrequently as possible.
The code itself is 34 paragraphs long, but the guide is 208. Updating, clarifying and, wherever possible, simplifying remains a work in progress. The fourth report proposes a number of amendments, mostly minor, which the committee has considered in the last year.
First, the report recommends redrafting the scope provisions of the code to make them clear—and this is important—without changing the substance.
Secondly, the report proposes a change to the provisions, setting out what happens when a Member under investigation by the Commissioner for Standards leaves the House. Under current rules, the investigation would come to an end in nearly all cases. The report proposes that the commissioner should, in those cases, be authorised to complete a pre-existing investigation, but only if the Conduct Committee is assured that is in the public interest. I hope noble Lords can think of cases where we would judge that to be so.
Thirdly, the report proposes uprating the threshold for registration of shareholdings from £50,000 to £100,000. This is the first time the threshold has been updated since 2010.
Fourthly—and in this case the committee was responding to requests to look at this from Members of this House, from several noble Lords—the report sets out a way for them to register substantial private equity investments or corporate debt securities. We required some expert help in understanding these issues, which we sought. The provisions would now require Members to register such investments in category 4 and they establish a threshold for doing so.
Fifthly and finally, the report proposes some other minor changes to the code and guide, which are explained in the report.
I now turn to the committee’s fifth report. Earlier this year, the committee decided to review the provisions in the code and guide on parliamentary advice and services for the first time since they were agreed in 2009 and 2010. We were not seeking to tighten the rules, which have broadly worked well, but rather to ensure that they are expressed as clearly and logically as possible, so that all noble Lords understand them. To inform the review, we issued a consultation paper containing draft proposals, to which all noble Lords were invited to respond—28 did so, and I thank them for their thoughtful and helpful suggestions, some of which were incorporated into what we did. We also spoke the chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, my noble friend Lord Evans of Weardale.
As the report notes, noble Lords broadly recommended the changes in the draft proposals, although some, naturally enough, queried individual provisions and made drafting suggestions. We considered all these responses and did make changes as a result. We are grateful for that help from noble Lords. The Conduct Committee welcomes engagement from Members of the House on the work it is doing on noble Lords’ behalf.
I will not go through every proposed change in the report, since many of them are straightforward drafting improvements, but I will touch on some of them. The proposed redraft of the provision on paid parliamentary services aims to make it crystal clear that Members cannot—and these are the key words—in return for payment or other reward, either do something or not do something in parliamentary proceedings; engage with parliamentarians, Ministers or officials on the issue; or provide ancillary parliamentary services, such as setting up an APPG or sponsoring a security pass. I repeat: this is in return for payment or any other reward.
The report then clarifies the limited exceptions to these rules, proposing, we hope, a much clearer explanation of the circumstances in which Members can, on occasion, provide parliamentary advice or services to an organisation or person in which they have a financial interest. This allows Members to carry out the full responsibilities of their outside jobs and ensures that the code does not inadvertently make Peers less attractive than non-Members for roles.
Again, with the help of a suggestion from a noble Baroness, we looked at the application of the rules for Members who undertake public sector roles. We are very grateful for being steered in this direction and we propose two key changes. First, we propose that the term “public bodies” is broadened with the clearer phrase “public sector organisations”. Secondly, while we endorse the existing exemption from the exclusive benefit rule, which attaches to such roles, we see no justification for the exemption from prohibition on paid parliamentary advice and services. The report proposes the removal of that exception.
I hope your Lordships will agree that these two reports offer some modest but sensible improvements to the code and the guide. I beg to move that the fourth report be agreed to.
Conduct Committee
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Manningham-Buller
That the Report from the Select Committee Parliamentary advice and services: proposed changes to the Code of Conduct and Guide to the Code of Conduct (5th Report, HL Paper 243) be agreed to.
Powers of Attorney Bill
Thursday 14th September 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Powers of Attorney Act 2023 View all Powers of Attorney Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I believe the House allows a Member proposing a Bill to say a few words of thanks.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
I am sorry, I have already called the voices, so I think we must move on.
Combined Sewer Overflows
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, we have had discussions about sewage discharges over a number of years now, including several extensive sessions during the relatively recent passage of the Environment Act 2021. Everybody is clear that, under the law, sewage should be discharged only in exceptional circumstances—everybody it seems but the Government, the arm’s-length bodies their Ministers are responsible for and the water companies those bodies regulate. In the OEP’s view, Ministers and regulators are guilty of
“misinterpretations of some key points of law”.
That is extremely worrying. We also think it is worrying that the Environment Secretary has chosen to disagree with her own environmental body, in one of its first major investigations of government conduct.
During the passage of the Environment Act, colleagues across your Lordships’ House voiced concern about the OEP’s lack of enforcement powers. Regardless of one’s views on the European Court of Justice and the European Commission, the previous situation was clear: if the Government were found to have acted unlawfully, there could be fines or other enforcement action. Could the Minister confirm today that, if the OEP recommends legislative or regulatory changes, or seeks to take enforcement action against Defra, his department will comply? Does he regret that this question even needs to be asked, following the adversarial approach adopted by his Secretary of State?
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I suggest I have a different understanding of how an OEP investigation works. Let me be absolutely clear about this: the OEP has not satisfied itself, on the balance of probabilities, that Defra has failed to comply with environmental law; rather, the OEP believes it has reasonable grounds for suspecting the Defra has failed to comply with environmental law and has asked us for more information to help it make its decision, and of course we are complying with this process. Her allegation is that this is a done deal; the OEP’s concerns that the Government have somehow broken the law is under discussion. We now have two months to reply, and the OEP then has two months to adjudicate.
The aims of the OEP investigation are to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the public authorities—Defra, Ofwat and the Environment Agency—and to determine whether they have failed to comply with their respective duties. The OEP will consider the responses from all three public authorities in detail before deciding next steps. We should not prejudge its conclusions. The OEP’s press release clearly states that:
“If the response changes the OEP’s view on whether there has been a failure to comply with the law, or sets out steps the public authority intends to take to rectify the failure, then the OEP may decide not to take any further action in relation to the alleged failure(s).”
My answer to her final question is: yes, of course we will comply. We have created the OEP to try to find the best possible way to hold government to account on environmental policy following our leaving the European Union, where we were subject to infraction fines if we had broken the law. Through the Environment Act, we wanted to create something that held government departments to account. We believe in the OEP and what it does, and we will certainly comply with its findings.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, in its statement on Tuesday, the OEP identified serious breaches of environmental law. Despite what appears to be heavy investment to combat combined sewer overflows, Defra is accused of breaking Sections 18 and 94 of the Water Industry Act 1991 and other water regulations in deliberately allowing sewage overflows to continue when there has been no rain. Given yesterday’s debate on nutrients, are the Government really serious about protecting the environment as set out in the Environment Act, or are they only paying lip service?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I know the noble Baroness well enough to know that she does not really believe that. We sat through hours and hours of debate on the Environment Act, the Agriculture Act and the Fisheries Act. She knows that this Government have done more to protect the environment and deal with the unacceptable problem, which has existed for centuries, of sewage going into our rivers. She knows that we are investing in monitoring. The previous Government did not have a clue: they knew of 7% of sewage outflows. I started that change in 2012, and we now know of 91%; by the end of this year, we will know of 100%. That light of transparency is helping resolve this problem.
We have a record investment programme of £56 billion to deal with the problem. We have tougher regulation: there was a debate on nutrients yesterday and a debate in the Grand Committee on increasing penalties for breaches of rules from £250,000, where they are capped, to unlimited amounts. That is an example of tougher regulation that we are bringing in. At the moment, we have the largest ever criminal investigation by the Environment Agency into this matter, and we have a very serious civil investigation by the regulator Ofwat. We are absolutely committed to dealing with this, and we are doing more than any other Government have done previously.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I will focus on the positive going forward, which is that the water companies are going to find the money to tackle combined sewer overflows. Is my noble friend confident that the level of expenditure can be found in the context of the current price review, which becomes effective on 1 January 2024? Also, does he not think that it is grossly unfair on water companies to be expected to connect to inadequate Victorian pipes that cannot take the effluent coming from these new housing developments? They are being forced to because of the current legislation.
Lord Benyon (Con)
My noble friend knows that there is a major investment in infrastructure, the largest ever, which is seeing many of those thousands of miles of Victorian pipes being replaced by modern ones. It is absolutely vital that any developments take into account the sewage infrastructure. That is why we are insisting on the entire impact of those, and any, developments being reflected in investment, and why we are front-loading a lot of the expenditure. We are requiring water companies to do a lot, but that is what their customers and the people of this country want. We have the right system by which to make that happen, and we want to encourage that expenditure to happen as quickly as possible.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the current system of private monopolies dates back to 1989, when Margaret Thatcher sold off the publicly owned water and sewage industry for £7.6 billion, debt free. Since then, average household bills have risen 40% above inflation, the companies are now £54 billion in debt and have since paid out £66 billion in dividends to shareholders. Of the bills that people are paying today, 20p in the pound is going to shareholders or to cover that debt. Given that the regulation of these companies and the economic situation are clearly failing, surely it is now time for the Government to at least set up the process of looking into how we can bring these companies back into public hands and run them for public good.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I may have misunderstood the noble Baroness, but I have certainly had it put to me in this Chamber that, when this system of private ownership was put in place, it was somehow an ideological Conservative Government that was doing it. Nothing could be further from the truth. It was done because we were the dirty man of Europe: our rivers were stinking, and a very small percentage of our beaches were compliant. Now, we have nearly 93% of our bathing waters in good or improving conditions. I am not naive; I know that there are serious problems. But if the noble Baroness is really suggesting that the way of dealing with this is to completely change it and require the taxpayer to pay billions of pounds to purchase these companies back, which would see investment in this country into the regulated utility sector fall off a cliff, that is very dangerous not just for our water industry but our energy companies and every other regulated utility.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, while entirely accepting the thrust of what my noble friend just said, there is continuing concern, as he well knows, not just about sewage but, as I have raised many times before, the terrible state of one of the loveliest rivers in the kingdom, the Wye. When can we expect to see proper improvement in those ghastly situations?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I thank my noble friend. The Secretary of State held a meeting in the Wye Valley with all partners concerned. Out of that have come a number of actions. What is frustrating is when local authorities, for example, do not allow planning permission for measures such as biodigesters, which would deal with the chicken manure that is causing the nutrients to flow into the river, which results in large parts of the River Wye effectively becoming ecologically dead at certain times of the year. We need joined-up thinking not just between government and regulators but between local planners and farmers, and an understanding that, when a producer company vertically integrates its supply chain and we do not understand its impact in planning, it takes years to get right—but we are absolutely determined to do it.
Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That the draft Order laid before the House on 6 September be approved.
Relevant document: 51st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, before getting into the detail of this order, I take this opportunity to apologise sincerely to the House that news of the Home Secretary’s decision, which we are here to debate, became public before the order was laid. I am grateful to House for its consideration of this draft order, which will see Wagner Group, a truly brutal organisation, proscribed.
Some 78 terrorist organisations are currently proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000. Not only is proscription a powerful tool for degrading terrorist organisations, it sends a strong message of the UK’s commitment to tackling terrorist activity globally. Wagner Group are terrorists. As such, the Home Secretary proposes amending Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000 by adding Wagner Group, also referred to as Wagner Network, to the list of proscribed organisations.
For an organisation to be proscribed, the Home Secretary must reasonably believe that it is currently concerned in terrorism as set out in Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000. If this statutory test is met, the Home Secretary must then consider the proportionality of proscription and decide whether to exercise her discretion.
Proscription is a powerful tool with severe penalties. It criminalises being a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation, and wearing articles of a proscribed organisation in a way that arouses suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter. Penalties are a maximum of 14 years in prison and/or an unlimited fine. Proscription also supports other disruptive activity, including immigration disruptions and terrorist financing offences. The resources of a proscribed organisation are terrorist property and are, therefore, liable to be seized.
This builds on sanctions already in place on Wagner Group. Terrorist financing incurs criminal, rather than civil, penalties, and allows the Government ultimately to forfeit terrorist property, rather than just freeze an individual’s assets. The Home Secretary is supported in her decision-making by the cross-government proscription review group. A decision to proscribe is taken only after great care and consideration, given its wide-ranging impact. It must be approved by both Houses.
A great deal of carnage can be laid at the feet of Wagner Group, a Russian private military company that emerged following Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and Putin’s first illegal invasion of eastern Ukraine in 2014. It has acted as a proxy military force on behalf of the Russian state, operating in a range of theatres including Ukraine, Syria, the Central African Republic, Sudan, Libya, Mozambique and Mali. It has pursued Russia’s foreign policy objectives and the objectives of other Governments who have contracted Wagner’s services. In the hours following Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine, Wagner was reportedly tasked with assassinating President Zelensky—a task in which it failed, thanks to the heroism and bravery displayed by Ukrainian security forces.
Wagner Group describes itself in heroic terms, even suggesting, abhorrently, that it is the saviour of Africa. That private military companies remain illegal under Russian law is something that has never particularly concerned Putin. Putin can distort the truth to suit himself all he likes, but the truth is that the Wagner Group are terrorists.
With this House’s consent, Wagner Group will be proscribed. Having carefully considered all the evidence, including advice from the cross-government proscription review group, the Home Secretary has decided that there is sufficient evidence that allows her to reasonably believe that Wagner Group is concerned in terrorism, and that proscription is proportionate. Although I am unable to comment on specific intelligence, I can provide the House with a summary of the group’s activities supporting this decision. I warn the House that some of this detail is deeply unpleasant.
Wagner Group commits and participates in terrorism; this is based on its use of serious violence against Ukrainian armed forces and civilians to advance Russia’s political cause. Wagner played a central role in combat operations against Ukrainian armed forces to seize the city of Popasna in May 2022 and during the assault of Bakhmut, largely occupied by Russian forces this year. This assault has resulted in the virtual destruction of a city once home to 70,000 people. Wagner barely showed any more concern for the lives of its own side. Defence Intelligence has assessed that up to 20,000 convicts, recruited directly from Russian prisons on the promise of a pardon and an early release, were killed within a few months of the attack on Bakhmut. Wagner’s relentless bombardment of Bakhmut was one of the bloodiest episodes in modern military history.
Noble Lords may also be aware of multiple reports alleging unbelievable brutality by Wagner commanders against their own troops who retreat, desert or otherwise refuse to carry out their leaders’ orders. The most notorious of these—the killing of a purported deserter, murdered by a sledgehammer blow to the head—has even been glorified by Wagner’s leaders and Russian ultra-nationalists. This macabre culture and brutality are indicative of the fact that Wagner Group is a terrorist organisation, not just a private military company.
The group carries out preparatory acts for terrorism, including undertaking activities intended to cause serious violence against people or serious damage to property, directly to advance a political cause and to intimidate opponents in Ukraine. Ukrainian prosecutors have accused Wagner Group fighters of war crimes near Kyiv, in which the tortured bodies of civilians were found with their hands tied behind their backs in the village of Motyzhyn.
Wagner Group has also been implicated in serious acts of violence and damage to property while working in several countries in Africa. A UN report published in May this year implicated Wagner Group in the massacre of at least 500 people in the Malian town of Moura in March 2022, including summary executions as well as rape and torture. In June 2021, a panel of experts convened by the UN Security Council detailed atrocities in the Central African Republic, including
“excessive use of force, indiscriminate killings, the occupation of schools and looting on a large scale, including of humanitarian organizations”.
Despite its mutiny in June this year, and the reported death of its leader Yevgeny Prigozhin last month, Wagner Group remains a violent and destructive organisation. Proscription sends a strong message of the UK’s commitment to tackle terrorist activity and builds on our existing cross-government work to counter Wagner Group’s destabilising activities. Its leadership’s recent feud with senior Russian military figures is a predictable consequence of Putin’s disastrous decision to invade Ukraine, but it is fundamentally a distraction from the fact that Wagner Group continues to commit violent acts around the world.
While Putin’s regime wavers over what to do with the monster it has created, Wagner’s continuing destabilising activities only serve the Kremlin’s political goals. All this means that the case for action is now stronger than ever. Wagner is vulnerable. A leadership vacuum and questions about its future provide a unique opportunity to truly disrupt its operations and the threat it poses. That is why this House must proscribe Wagner now.
This decision comes after public calls from President Zelensky for international allies to take action and list Wagner Group as a terrorist organisation. In doing so, we stand alongside our allies in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and France, whose parliaments have called for Wagner Group to be labelled as a terrorist organisation on the EU’s list of terrorist groups. We continue to work in close co-ordination with the US, which designated Wagner Group under its transnational criminal organisations sanctions programme earlier this year. In formally proscribing, we will be leading the international effort by taking concrete legal action against Wagner Group. I urge our other allies to follow suit. This decision demonstrates that the UK will maintain its unwavering support for Ukraine, in co-ordination with our allies. It shows that we stand with the people of Ukraine against Russian aggression.
Wherever Wagner Group operates, it has a catastrophic effect on communities, worsens existing conflicts and damages the reputations of countries that host it. Wagner may be at its most vulnerable, and Russia’s military leaders may be grappling to regain control of the organisation, but the brutal methods it has employed will undoubtedly remain a tool of the Russian state. Let there be no misunderstanding: whatever form Wagner takes, we and our allies will pursue, expose and disrupt it. Wagner Group is a terrorist organisation, and we must not be afraid of saying so. We will hold Russia to account for its use of these malign groups and the devastation they inflict around the world. We stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine, while confronting terrorism with the relentless enthusiasm the public rightly expect. I commend this order to the House.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, since I and many other noble Lords in this House have long called for the Government to proscribe the Wagner Group, it is unsurprising that I give this legislation a warm welcome. The sad fact is that war, armed conflict, is a terrible thing. It results in death, maiming, destruction and wholesale suffering, but most of us understand that, regrettable as it may be, it cannot be eliminated from the world. We therefore have to do all we can to contain its devastating effects.
The global community in the 20th century put a great deal of effort into constructing laws of armed conflict that would do this, yet we see in Europe a conflict during which the most horrific war crimes have been, and are still being, committed. It is not just in Europe; we see it in many countries throughout Africa as well. In so many instances, the Wagner Group has been and is at the centre of them. The proscription of the group is therefore to be warmly welcomed. But it is not alone in committing these war crimes; only this morning I heard evidence of some of the things that have been going on in Ukraine, which frankly makes one’s blood run cold.
My simple comment to the Government is: well done on this. I welcome it; it is a step in the right direction. But if we are to live in anything approaching a civilised world in the future, there is much more to be done in addressing the war crimes being committed today in Ukraine. I hope the Government will take the strongest action in that regard.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and gallant Lord. I agree with every single word he said. I also agree with what the Minister said in outlining these measures, which we support from these Benches.
Ever since the formation of this private military consultants group, after the illegal invasion of Crimea by Dmitry Utkin then led by Yevgeny Prigozhin, I have been following not only the activities but the tactics of this group. I followed the fact that it had been recruiting from prisons; that it had carried out its activities way beyond those norms which the noble and gallant Lord indicated; and the spread of its activities, which are on the one hand formally not permitted under Russian law but on the other hand are a very useful tool of Putin to extend some form of terror and influence across the Sahel and other parts of Africa. This led me to be the first in Parliament to call for the group’s proscription in April last year; I did so again on 23 May, 9 June, 7 July, 15 November, 21 December and have done so countless times this year to Ministers from the Home Office, the FCDO and the Treasury. So I am very pleased that the Minister has brought forward these measures to see this evil organisation categorised as exactly what it is: a terrorist organisation.
I was alarmed during this process by some of the responses from the Government. I hope the Minister will allow me to make just a couple of comments with regards to the missed opportunity in not proscribing earlier. On 11 July, my noble friend Lady Northover questioned the Defence Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie. Citing my calls, my noble friend said that
“surely the case for proscription is now more pressing than ever”.
The Minister replied:
“I would observe that proscription in its own right is perhaps less effective because of the particular environment in which it applies”.—[Official Report, 11/7/23; col. 1644.]
However, that is entirely the point. The Wagner Group has, to some extent, acted with impunity. Therefore, the signal from the UK to act now is very welcome, but it is worth nothing that it was this Government and this Treasury who issued a sanction avoidance licence to the leaders of this terrorist group in order to use the English legal system in palpably malign legal activities under a SLAPPs action. It was this Government’s Treasury that permitted the abuse of our system, therefore His Majesty’s Government—and Her Majesty’s Government before—have been slow to act. There was a Treasury derogation of sanctions that this Parliament had approved; we in this House would have said that that was outrageous had we been informed. I say this to the Minister: I hope that there will be no other actions such as those sanctions derogations for the other groups that the noble and gallant Lord indicated are acting similarly to the Wagner Group.
My second point relates to some of the areas where this group has been acting; the Minister and other Ministers have heard me say this before. I have seen Wagner operatives in Sudan at first hand. I saw them in Khartoum. I have seen the breadth of their work, not just purely within terrorism activities but in misinformation, disinformation and disruption of processes. Regrettably, they have continued to operate. I have raised in Grand Committee the fact that the Wagner Group has been contracted through a number of joint ventures that Russia has operated in—one with regards to the Kush gold project in Sudan with the United Arab Emirates. At this gold project, Wagner has been under its security consultant’s arm. I am sure that they are but I hope the Minister can confirm that all elements of the Wagner network are so proscribed, and that there is no loophole where some form of private sector separate contracting security operatives could operate within this. Wagner, operating under security for the Kush gold project, which provides funds to one of the warring parties to Sudan—the Rapid Support Forces—is in effect, to my knowledge, being operated under a financial vehicle between Russia and the UAE. I would be grateful if the Minister could indicate what discussions we are having with our allies to ensure that any commercial relationship with the Wagner network, or those who advise the Wagner network, will also be within scope of the Home Office’s activity.
In supporting this measure, I hope that His Majesty’s Government will be assertive not just in following suit with our friends in the European Union and the United States—I welcome the fact that the Government are in discussions with them—but in using all of the money laundering measures that we have in place and our diplomatic relations with those in the Gulf to indicate that their relationships with this network are now beyond the pale for any UK operatives. I would be more than welcome a briefing from officials in due course should the Minister allow me to do so because it is simply the case, as we all know, that proscribing is welcome but is not the end of the process. It is about how we ensure that it is implemented not just alone but with our allies in order to ensure that this evil network is halted in its activities, which are against humanity.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement and the Home Secretary for giving the Statement yesterday. This is the right thing to do; maybe it is a bit late in the day but it is the right thing to do.
The problem we have in this area is that we are not always consistent. We have done the right thing here but I have here on my phone the front page of the Jewish Chronicle, published today before the Jewish New Year, which is tomorrow night. The headline reads:
“James Cleverly: ‘We will not ban Iran’s Terror Guards’”.
In everything that was read out by the Minister, you could cut and paste in “IRGC”. The IRGC has done everything—and more, in my view—that the Wagner Group has done in terms of the UK. I know that the Home Secretary and my noble friend the Minister will say it is under review and all of that, but it is the consistency that I hope the Government will look at. In the middle of the interview, it says here that Foreign Secretary Cleverly said that
“he would not ‘speculate’ on whether the policy might change in future, pointing out that any decision of this kind would be taken ‘across government’, not by the Foreign Office alone”.
I welcome that statement because it seems that everybody across government is supportive of the proscription of the IRGC; it just seems to be that the Foreign Office is not. I congratulate the Minister today but I do wish we would be consistent.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend makes a very good point, which I am sure the Minister will take on board. I join the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in welcoming what my noble friend the Minister said earlier. Many of us—in particular the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, who was the first to raise this on the Floor of the House—have referred to this matter in the past. This is a truly evil organisation.
What worries me is this: in the light of the brutal events in Russia a couple of weeks ago, with the death of the founder of this ghastly group, what is going to happen in Africa? There is a real danger. I hope that my noble friend, although I realise that he is from the Home Office not the Foreign Office, will be able to give some reassurance that activities in Africa are being monitored as closely as possible and that we are doing all we can to strengthen our relations with legitimate and acceptable African Governments. What is going on at the moment is subversion of the most brutal kind and suppression of nascent democracy of the simplest sort.
I believe that, if we are not careful, bearing in mind the population of Africa by the middle of the century, we will see a danger build up that will distort the very fabric of world civilisation and relations. I think proscription is excellent. It is too late, but it is good, and we are grateful for it, but we must have careful regard for what these people are still doing, even though their dreadful, satanic funder is now dead.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his statement and for the apology that he made in his usual courteous way. Any such debate should begin by paying tribute to all the exceptional people who work tirelessly in our security services, the Government and the police to keep us safe.
The order before us today adds the Wagner Group to the list of proscribed organisations in Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. It therefore becomes an offence to engage in various activities, as the Minister outlined, such as promoting or supporting the group, and it allows property to be seized. We fully support the Government in taking this action and welcome the proscription of the Wagner Group. It is a necessary step to meet the threat it poses.
The Minister will know that there have been calls for this proscription for a considerable period of time. The shadow Home Secretary called for it in February and the former chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee was a strong advocate of it and, although he has moved on to other areas, I hope he had an influence. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, have also been strong advocates for this designation. In May, we saw France take action against Wagner as a terrorist organisation and the United States has designated it a transnational criminal organisation. Given all this, it would helpful if the Minister could explain why it has taken until now to designate Wagner, whether there are any lessons to be learned about whether the Government could have acted sooner, and why they did not act more quickly.
The Minister will know that, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Polak, and others, there are concerns about other groups, such as Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and our security, so it is important to ask the Government what their policy is towards these state-sponsored actors, which we discussed quite significantly and at great length during the passage of the National Security Bill, which is now an Act. Can the Minister confirm that there are ongoing discussions across government to address any tension that exists, including in the proscription group that the Minister mentioned? We know that there are difficulties between the Home Office and the Foreign Office with respect to the proscription of various groups, so will the Minister say a little bit about how the Government are seeking to resolve that? Can he outline what, if anything, the recently refreshed Contest strategy had to say about the national security threats posed by state and non-state actors?
Can the Minister update us on the 81 individuals and entities recently identified by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee as linked to Wagner? Is it still the case that by July, only one-quarter of those 81 individuals had been sanctioned? Surely more can be done more quickly. Can he lay out for us the territorial application of this order? We know that Wagner has a record of violence, theft and murder, from Ukraine to Syria, from Mali to Mozambique. We know it has been involved in the massacre of civilians in places such as the Central African Republic and that it trades violence for natural resources. Indeed, the Minister helpfully outlined many grotesque details of what the Wagner Group has been involved in. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, highlighted that in his contribution. It would be helpful for us to understand what practical effect the order will have on any of these activities and what practical effect the Government consider this proscription will have in the UK.
The Government have the defending democracy task force. Can the Minister say anything about it, given the threat that Wagner poses? Can he give us any update on the Government’s view on the future of Wagner, given recent events? We strongly support the Government’s actions in Ukraine. Of course, President Zelensky called for the proscription of Wagner, so this is another important step in the demonstration of our solidarity with Ukraine. The Minister mentioned that the Government are trying to encourage other Governments to take similar action. Can he say more about that?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all who have contributed to this debate. A lot of ground has been covered, and I am encouraged by the supportive atmosphere in which the discussion has taken place. Members of the Wagner Group are terrorists, plain and simple, and am I confident that the House recognises, as do the British people, that we have a moral responsibility to act. We must and will confront terrorism wherever and however it occurs, and that is why we are taking this action.
I turn to the specific points raised. I start by reassuring, I hope, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, that, in addition to our continued training offer to the national police of Ukraine to support Ukraine’s collection of evidence of Russia’s war crimes in Ukraine, the Home Office is currently providing short-term funding to the war crimes documentation centre, run by a Ukrainian NGO in Warsaw. It ensures that first-hand testimony from Ukrainian refugees in Poland is recorded. The UK is also providing £2.5 million to the Atrocity Crimes Advisory Group to support Ukraine’s domestic investigations and prosecution of international crimes. We are also working extremely closely with the ICC in support of its investigations. That is a very comprehensive package of support, and I hope it continues and is enhanced.
A number of noble Lords asked what would happen if the Wagner Group merges with the Russian MoD or Redut. HMG keep the list of proscribed organisations under very careful review. It is not government policy to comment on whether an organisation is under consideration for proscription or whether the Government will consider a specific organisation, but proscription sends a strong message about the UK’s commitment to tackling terrorism globally and calling out terrorist activity wherever it is committed. The turmoil currently facing the Wagner Group presents opportunities for impactful disruption of its activities, and I will come back to that later.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Coaker, and my noble friend Lord Polak asked why it has taken so long. The decision has not been taken in isolation. It builds on a strong response to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine and the Wagner Group’s wider destabilising activities, including extensive sanctions. The Government sanctioned the Wagner Group in February 2022, imposing asset freezes on any funds identified as belonging to Wagner in the UK and travel bans on any of its members. The Foreign Secretary expanded these sanctions in July this year, with 30 new UK sanctions targeting a range of individuals and businesses linked to the actions of the Wagner Group in Africa. The House will be aware of the recent significant events surrounding the Wagner Group, so it was right for the Home Secretary to consider the impact of those key events when taking the proscription decision.
Now is the time to proscribe. The turmoil currently facing the Wagner Group, as I have just said, presents opportunities to disrupt its activities. Proscription sends a strong message of the UK’s commitment to tackling terrorism globally and calling out terrorist activity wherever it is committed. This proscription reiterates the UK’s unwavering support to Ukraine and condemns Russia’s aggression, Wagner’s role in the war in Ukraine and its wider activities, which have consistently been linked to human rights violations, as others have noted.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked what the impact of proscription is. It sends a very clear message and will enable us to disrupt significantly. In addition to the proscription offences, proscription can support other disruptive activity, including the use of immigration powers, encouraging the removal of online material, EU asset freezes and so on. The resources of a proscribed organisation are terrorist property and therefore liable to be seized.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, also asked why Prigozhin was able to circumvent sanctions to sue a journalist in this country. I refer the House to the statement made on this matter by my noble friend Lady Penn on 30 March this year. Following a review of how these licences are granted, it is now the Government’s view that in most cases the use of funds frozen due to sanctions for the payment of legal professional fees for defamation cases is not an appropriate use of funds and, in many cases, will be against the public interest. OFSI will in future take a presumption that legal fees relating to defamation and similar cases will be rejected.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked for clarification of the application of proscription offences. The membership offence under Section 11 of the Terrorism Act 2000—TACT—has extraterritorial jurisdiction, applying to anyone, wherever they are in the world. The support offence applies to any UK citizen or resident. Terrorist financing offences could also apply outside the UK. Once Wagner is proscribed, we will expect social media companies to identify and remove content that promotes or supports the Wagner Group.
I anticipated the question by my noble friend Lord Polak on the IRGC and I understand it, because there is obviously significant parliamentary, media and public interest in a potential proscription decision. Both the House of Commons and the House of Lords have discussed IRGC proscription, with the House of Commons unanimously passing a Motion in January to urge the Government to proscribe. As Ministers have previously made clear to the House, the IRGC’s destabilising and hostile activity is unacceptable, and we will use all tools at our disposal to protect the UK and our interests at home and abroad. That includes considering proscription where appropriate.
The UK Government have sanctioned the IRGC in its entirety. While the department keeps the list of proscribed organisations under review, as I have said, our policy is not to comment on the specifics of individual proscription cases, and I am unable to provide further details on this issue. Ministers have previously confirmed to the House that this decision was under active consideration, but they will not provide a running commentary. I say to my noble friend that there is one difference: the IRGC is an Iranian military body answerable to Iran’s Supreme Leader. The Home Secretary’s role, as discussed in relation to Wagner, is to consider all available evidence before arriving at a decision.
A number of noble Lords asked what efforts have been made to persuade international allies to take co-ordinated action against the Wagner Group. His Majesty’s Government continue to work with key international partners to ensure that the Wagner Group is held to account on the world stage and to promote global efforts to curtail Wagner’s destabilising activity. When it comes to proscription decisions, the Home Secretary will consider the position of key international partners and, where appropriate, departments will undertake proactive engagement to explore the benefits of concerted multilateral action to increase the effect of proscription. The Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence have been very supportive of international engagement over this particular decision. I would also like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that this is very comprehensive and there is no way for Wagner or its offshoots to hide.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked about Contest. I refer to the Government’s recent refresh of the integrated review, which set out that the UK will use all tools at our disposal to protect the UK against the modern threats we face.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I will be happy if the Minister wishes to write to me on this, but I raised a point regarding entities that have contracted the Wagner Group as private security. This can include joint ventures with commercial organisations and countries we have friendly diplomatic relations with, including in the Gulf. Can the Minister write to me about how we will apply the extraterritorial aspects of this with regard to that component? That is very important to ensure that there is no avoidance of the very valid reasons we are doing this.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord makes a good point. He reminds me that I should have commented on his comments about a very specific country, which of course I am not really able to do in detail. I am sure that diplomatic efforts and overtures are ongoing. I am certainly happy to write to the noble Lord in as much detail as I am able to.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I was concerned when I read the Foreign Affairs Select Committee report about the 81 individuals who had been identified as linked to Wagner and how only a quarter had been actively sanctioned by the Government. Can the Minister update us on what is happening with that? If not, perhaps he can write to me and put a copy in the Library.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, will not expect me to comment on live or ongoing situations. I will find out what it is possible to say and certainly have a conversation with him or place a letter in the Library, depending on what I am able to say.
I offer thanks to all who have participated in this debate. Through this proscription, the UK will again demonstrate that we will not waver in our support for Ukraine and will hold Russia to account for its aggression. We condemn Wagner’s role in Russia’s war. Its wider activities have consistently been linked to human rights violations. Through this action, we are sending a message loud and clear that the United Kingdom will never stay silent in the face of injustice or stop fighting terrorism. Finally, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about Wagner’s future, I sincerely hope that it does not have one. I commend this order to the House.
Northern Ireland Budget (No. 2) Bill
Thursday 14th September 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Budget (No. 2) Act 2023 View all Northern Ireland Budget (No. 2) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 4 September 2023 - (4 Sep 2023)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, before I begin my comments on the Bill itself, I once again place on record my gratitude to your Lordships for considering this important Bill on a heavily truncated timetable.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I set out the budget allocations for each Northern Ireland department for 2023-24 in a Written Statement, which I placed before your Lordships’ House on 27 April. All this Bill does is put those allocations on a statutory footing; it does not change the numbers. I do not propose to repeat the contents of that Written Statement, which sets out the respective departmental allocations. Those budget allocations, as with the 2022-23 Northern Ireland budget, were developed as a result of extensive and sustained engagement with the Northern Ireland Civil Service.
The Bill will mean that Northern Ireland departments have a total available resource budget of £14.2 billion and a capital budget of £2.2 billion. This includes the Northern Ireland Executive block grant set at the spending review in 2021 and through the subsequent operation of the Barnett formula and income from regional rates. I emphasise that the sum available for this budget would have been the same provided to an Executive for 2023-24 if an Executive were in place.
Of course, it is the Government’s clear wish that these matters were being dealt with by a fully functioning Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly, operating in accordance with the 1998 Belfast agreement, and we are working tirelessly to bring that about. However, in the absence of an Executive, it is the responsibility of the Northern Ireland departments now to make the specific spending decisions to ensure that they live within the budget limits as set out in this Bill. I recognise that this is not easy and will require difficult decisions.
Noble Lords will remember that the UK Government inherited a significant prospective overspend in 2022-23, to the sum of £660 million, and a reserve claim of £297 million was provided to balance last year’s budget. With agreement from my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, flexibility has been granted on the repayment of that reserve claim. This will provide some protection to front-line public services in Northern Ireland from having to take the most severe reductions.
With the leave of the House, I will speak to the clauses—I apologise that these are somewhat technical and legalistic in nature. Clauses 1 and 2 authorise the use of resources by Northern Ireland departments and other specified public bodies, amounting to £27,403,514,000 in the year ending 31 March 2024. In short, these clauses authorise the use of resources to that amount by departments and other specified public bodies for the purposes set out in Part 2 of the schedule estimate.
Clauses 3 and 4 authorise the Northern Ireland Department of Finance to issue out of the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland the sum of £22,790,893,000 for the year ending 31 March 2024, and the use of that sum to finance the expenditure that departments will need cash to fund. In short, these clauses allow the Department of Finance to allocate actual cash.
Clause 5 authorises the temporary borrowing by the Northern Ireland Department of Finance of £11,395,447,000—approximately half the sum covered by Clause 3. This is a normal safeguard against the possibility of a temporary deficiency arising in the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland, and any such borrowing is to be repaid by 31 March 2024.
Clause 6 authorises the use of income by Northern Ireland departments and other specified public bodies from the sources specified in Part 3 of the schedule estimate, for the purposes specified in Part 2 of the schedule estimate, in the year ending 31 March 2024.
Clause 7 provides for the authorisations and limits in the Bill to have the same effect as if they were contained in a budget Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly. It also modifies references in other pieces of legislation to the Northern Ireland estimates that would normally form part of the Assembly’s supply process.
Clauses 8 and 9 are self-explanatory, in that they deal with matters such as interpretation and the Short Title.
The schedule to the Bill sets out the estimates for each Northern Ireland department—that is, the amount of money authorised for use, the purposes for which it can be spent and other sources of income from which it can draw. For each department, Part 1 of the schedule estimate sets out the amount of resources authorised for use by each Northern Ireland department and other public bodies, and the sums of money granted to each Northern Ireland department and other bodies, for the year ending 31 March 2024. Part 2 of the schedule estimate sets out the purposes for which resources and money can be used by each Northern Ireland department and other bodies for the year ending 31 March 2024. Finally, Part 3 of the estimate sets out the sources from which income can be used by each Northern Ireland department and other body for the year ending 31 March 2024. I apologise again for the technical and legalistic nature of those clauses.
Before I conclude, I make a short statement on legislative consent. Clearly, we have been unable to secure a legislative consent Motion from the Northern Ireland Assembly, given that it is currently not sitting. Of course, if it were sitting, we would not have needed the Bill at all. However, the continued absence of the Assembly and the Executive means that we have been left with no other option but to take action here in the United Kingdom Parliament.
I hope I have provided your Lordships’ House with sufficient detail on the background to the Bill, the necessity for it and the intended effect of each provision within it. I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed explanation of the various clauses. Obviously, this legislation should be debated in the Northern Ireland Assembly and agreed by the Northern Ireland Executive and all the Ministers. Unfortunately, we do not have those institutions, but that is where the debate should be taken. Decisions should be made by local MLAs and local Ministers.
We are also debating this in the aftermath of a very successful—if I may say so—economic conference organised in Belfast by the Northern Ireland Office, the Department for Business and Trade and Invest NI. Significant announcements about job creation were made, and I hope that this will be sustained and that the conference, and the interaction with the United States and other countries, will lead to further job investment. That is what this is about: bringing people together, creating jobs and opportunities and galvanising the local talent in Northern Ireland for the betterment of all the people, irrespective of what those industries may be, whether they are in the manufacturing, digital or communications sectors.
I refer to the fact that Northern Ireland does not have political institutions. To the Members from the DUP in your Lordships’ House, I gently say that the people of Northern Ireland should no longer be placed on the altar of DUP political expediency. We need to move forward and show how we can exploit the economic and political opportunities from being able to trade in the two markets—the UK internal market and the EU single market. We need to galvanise the benefits of the Windsor Framework. Yes, there are some burdens, but, by and large, from what I can see and the evidence we have taken in our protocol committee, there has been a delay in publishing the guidance and then in the SIs, which are to be debated next week and which deal with the implementation framework. Therefore, I urge the Government to expedite that as much as possible. The bottom line is that we need to be able to develop those east-west and north-south opportunities from an economic perspective. To do that, we need the restoration of the political institutions to fuel and drive our economy and health service for the betterment of all.
It would perhaps be helpful if, in the Minister’s wind-up to this important piece of legislation, he could advise the House of progress in discussions with the DUP and when restoration is likely to take place. I note that talks are with only one party, but, as I have said before in this House, I believe that all-party talks should have taken place and priority should be placed on talks reconvening. In this respect, I refer to the comments made earlier this week by the Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office, Steve Baker.
In the last couple of weeks, there have been some informed documents and, only this morning, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions published a press statement, which I am sure the Minister is aware of. It asks for the overspend to be written off, for a review of the Barnett formula—others are suggesting that as well—and for a special transformation fund to be established to deal with an infrastructure fund.
Last week, on 4 September, a think tank called Pivotal, based in Belfast, stated that Northern Ireland suffers from a “governance gap”, with the absence of proper decision-making amid a budget crisis leaving public services to deteriorate. Its report states that a lack of strategic planning means that services are stuck in a
“vicious cycle, where problems are growing and our ability to tackle those problems is shrinking”.
Pivotal stated:
“Immediate challenges are not being met and neither is there a clear focus on long-term strategy … issues—like childcare, infrastructure and climate change—remain unaddressed”.
I refer to one of the environmental time bombs, shall we say, that the Minister will be aware of: the Lough Neagh blue algae problem. Lough Neagh is the biggest source of fresh water in perhaps the whole of the UK and Ireland.
Civil servants—the Minister has already referred to this—have been in charge of running government departments for 10 months, but their powers are limited, and we have already dealt with that legislation in this House. They are unable to make any major or significant changes, so are constrained in how they can tailor public services to ongoing challenges. Funding is extremely tight and this is made worse by the inability to get the most out of the cash available, another point raised by the Pivotal report. Examples include growing health waiting lists. Health has seen its funding allocation rise, but we must remember that it is the biggest government department, taking around 46% of the Northern Ireland block grant, yet it faces a shortfall of £732 million, while a lack of progress in the Bengoa-style transformation means that costs continue to rise. Trolley waits of several days in A&E are the norm and the length of time waiting for care packages results in bed blocking in hospitals.
Somebody raised with me an interesting point about the funding of health and social care in Northern Ireland: there is one funding pot, while here in Britain there are two different funding pots. In that respect, there are those who ask for a Barnett change to allow health funding passing to Northern Ireland to reflect this unique funding arrangement for health and social care. An important point to emphasise is that additional money supplied to health is siphoned off other government departments that can ill afford to allow that money to go to health. Education has cancelled programmes such as Engage, holiday hunger schemes and Healthy Happy Minds. Those are all early intervention or prevention programmes valued by vulnerable children in particular, but this is still £382 million over budget, with impacts on the most vulnerable children. Then there is the impact of RAAC, which is probably not yet costed and will need to be factored in in the Northern Ireland situation.
Policing accounts for around 60% of the Department of Justice budget, yet the former chief constable indicated some months ago that balancing the budget may be difficult with the reduction to that department’s budget. Imagine now the added costs of the data breach and a possible fine from the Information Commissioner. The state of our infrastructure system requires investment. Increasing depletion of our roads infrastructure is another common feature.
I simply highlight those issues to suggest that while this budget has already been allocated and we are simply giving legislative effect to it for this financial year, it will be utterly constrained and unable to deal with the pressing needs of Northern Ireland. I ask the Minister to provide an update on ongoing discussions with the head of the Civil Service in Northern Ireland on revenue raising measures and the preparation for the new programme for government if there is restoration.
It is interesting to note that the Pivotal report made recommendations including the need for departments to work together to consider the cumulative impact of cuts, particularly on the most vulnerable groups. Early intervention and prevention schemes should be prioritised rather than seen as optional, and an appropriate amount of additional funding will be needed to stabilise public services. Any new funding would need to be sustained for three or more years. If such a package coincided with a re-established Executive, it must come alongside firm commitments to reform to ensure that real change takes place.
I accept the budget as presented by the Minister because government departments are already working on it and with it in very constrained circumstances. I do not accept the levels of financial allocations and think that they need to be urgently looked at. Most of all, the UK and Irish Governments need to recommit to an active role in ensuring the restoration and maintenance of the Good Friday agreement institutions, and measures must be put in place to prevent further falls of the Executive—as a former Assembly Member, I like others in this Chamber was a victim of such falls; they have happened over several years of the Executive. Obviously, that will mean reform of some of the mechanisms. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I hope there is restoration, but I also hope that in having restoration, we have an Assembly holding the Executive to account to ensure that we have significant funding allocations to allow our economy to grow and develop and to avail of the many economic opportunities from the Windsor Framework and other measures currently at play.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, I thank the Minister for presenting to us the context for the Bill and for the technical elements of it. I would not dispute with him any of the technical aspects he described: they are fairly straightforwardly part of such a budget Bill. However, in opening the Second Reading debate on the Bill in the other place, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Chris Heaton-Harris, said something that I do disagree with:
“The Government have brought forward this Bill because the Northern Ireland parties have been unable to form an Executive and subsequently set a budget”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/7/23; col. 101.]
That is not true. It is not that they were “unable” but that the DUP was unwilling to form an Executive. The DUP’s Paul Givan resigned as First Minister following its objections to the Northern Ireland protocol.
It is entirely justifiable to protest against policies you do not agree with, complain about them, argue about them, debate them, but it is not justifiable to bring down a whole form of government as a protest, to bring down the Assembly and the Executive. It is quite true that Sinn Féin did the same thing: it was unwilling to form an Executive with the DUP previously, and that too was unacceptable. But there is a difference: Sinn Féin had a serious dispute with its partners in government and was protesting against them. As I say, it was not justifiable, but the difference is that the DUP on this occasion does not have a dispute with Sinn Féin—at least, not on this issue—but with the UK Government. The dispute is with the Government fulfilling a policy of Brexit that the DUP itself had urged upon them and supported, even though these consequences were emphasised to them by many of us. Brexit is a policy that most people in the United Kingdom now regard as a failed policy, and the majority of people in Northern Ireland never voted for it or supported it in the first place.
I entirely accept that if the Executive and the Assembly were restored tomorrow it would not resolve the problems that are described in the budget Bill. The abnegation of responsibility has worsened the financial situation, but it would not be resolved if there was devolution immediately. There is a huge deficit, as the Minister said—a black hole of at least £660 million and it may well be more. The consequences for all public services, and indeed the private sector too, in Northern Ireland are enormous. The education system is in chaos and the health service, which is the part of the public sector I know best, is dissolving before our very eyes. It is not just a question of increasing waiting lists and there not being enough money; it is now becoming clear that many of those who, like me, were consultants in the National Health Service in Northern Ireland are leaving. Some of them are taking early retirement; some are going across the border, and some are leaving Northern Ireland altogether. Many young people are choosing not to come in and, if they do, not to take up positions as partners in general practice or as consultants in the NHS. These are not matters that will be resolved overnight or even by the provision of money. There is a fundamental, deep disruption and disturbance in the way Northern Ireland works.
Trying to deal with this is not going to be at all easy. On the question of funding, does the Minister truly believe that the amount of money being made available by His Majesty’s Treasury is enough for Northern Ireland? Is it the case that, if all these other issues we are talking about, such as devolution and better co-ordination, were to be dealt with, there would be enough money? I am not sure that there is enough money to provide for the kinds of services the people of Northern Ireland ought to be able to expect as part of the United Kingdom.
We mentioned the question of the governance problem. Let us not forget that this is not the first time that the DUP has chosen to make Northern Ireland a difficult place to run. After the Anglo-Irish agreement, the slogan used was to make Northern Ireland “ungovernable”. That is different thing, and of course it was the case at that time that there was a Government here in Westminster who were determined to make sure that the rule of law prevailed and that Northern Ireland was properly governed. There was a police service that insisted on ensuring the rule of law. My colleagues in the Alliance Party used the law to ensure that people were made to go back to work in governance.
What is happening now is not about Northern Ireland not being governable. It is about Northern Ireland being no longer workable as an entity, and that is a different thing. It is entirely possible for people to make Northern Ireland unworkable, but what sort of an outcome is there going to be when you bring down the house around you? Does that serve the best interests of the inhabitants? We are in a very serious place whenever Northern Ireland becomes an unworkable place, and that is what is happening now.
So what should we do? First, we must understand that the UK Government are the responsible Government. In the absence of devolution, and even in its presence, the UK Government retain the responsibility for governing Northern Ireland, and therefore they have to take responsibility for the shambles that Northern Ireland is now in. I have been warning for years that this was what was happening and what it was leading to. The longer the Government keep postponing addressing this, the worse the situation gets.
So how should the Government address this? They tried to persuade the DUP to go into government with Sinn Féin; the DUP said no. They are trying now to persuade the Government to take responsibility for the financial consequences and they have pointed out what a difficult problem that is going to be. In fairness to the DUP politicians, when they were in a position of responsibility for both raising and spending the money, for example when Peter Robinson was leading Castlereagh council, of course I disagreed with them on many things, as did my colleagues, but he did act responsibly both in raising and in using the necessary funds, and keeping the books balanced. That is not happening now.
We have to think seriously how we deal with this. There is a question as to whether politicians have to continually have a veto over how things are run. Maybe the Government need to engage more and more directly with those in the business community, because they are the only ones who are going to keep things going. They are not going to argue about the constitution. They are going to say, “Let’s see how we can keep business going and make the money that is necessary for the wheels to go round”.
It is also important that, if strand 1 and strand 2 cannot operate, the British Government co-operate with the Irish Government to try to make things work as well as possible. If they do not, it is the people of Northern Ireland who will suffer ultimately. Northern Ireland’s position in the United Kingdom will become less and less viable as a proposition. Some people in Northern Ireland would welcome that, but it is certainly not something that pro-union and unionist people want to see. The question is whether the Government are prepared to go beyond the rigidity and resistance of some of Northern Ireland’s politicians or whether there will be continued drift and, ultimately, disaster.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed explanation of the budget. However, it is a matter of regret that once again we have been tasked with considering a budget for the people of Northern Ireland. As with the previous budget discussed in your Lordships’ House, one would have much preferred the budget to be discussed in its rightful place: the Northern Ireland Assembly. Decisions about spending priorities for Northern Ireland should be made at Stormont, not here or in the other place. But, unfortunately, this is not possible right now.
We know why this is the case. We find ourselves in this all too familiar situation because Northern Ireland remains a place apart. Within the context of the United Kingdom, rules are being imposed exclusively on Northern Ireland over which we have no say. As things stand, there is no accountability or scrutiny over those laws. Unfortunately, these barriers remain an impediment to the restoration of the Assembly.
In terms of the Budget, the cost of living is affecting every person across the United Kingdom, and in Northern Ireland in particular this pain is being felt. Unless there is a fundamental change in how Northern Ireland is funded, the situation will only get worse. With or without a Northern Ireland Executive, and with or without the Northern Ireland protocol or Windsor Framework, the reality of the Barnett formula will continue to lead to budgetary uncertainties and continued year on year pressures in Northern Ireland.
It is abundantly clear that spending in Northern Ireland is already clearly below need. Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom where spending has now fallen below the Government’s definition of need. The problem has been exacerbated by the fact that the Northern Ireland Office requires the Executive to repay a £279 million overspend for 2022-2023—which, interestingly, is a similar amount to the additional sum of £322 million that the Executive should have received in 2022-2023 had it been funded to the UK Government’s level of need. The decision not to base the budget for Northern Ireland on need is causing many of the issues we see today, and pressure will continue to grow on public services.
The overall budget for Northern Ireland this year has fallen by 3.2%, whereas the budget in the rest of the United Kingdom went up by 1.7% in real terms. As I have stated, one of the major reasons for this glaring disparity is the simple fact that the formula used for the rest of the United Kingdom—one based on need—has not been applied to Northern Ireland. Like budgets before it, this budget will leave the Northern Ireland education system, for example, facing a future funding crisis that will impact many children and young people. Spending on education has gone up by 6% in the rest of the United Kingdom, but it has fallen considerably again in Northern Ireland. According to analysis from the Institute for Fiscal Studies in the United Kingdom, spending per pupil has fallen consistently in Northern Ireland every year since 2010. In 2022, spending per pupil was estimated to be £6,400 in Northern Ireland, and that again is much less than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. With the recent additional pressures on an already stretched education system, schools in Northern Ireland cannot cope with further underinvestment.
Turning to policing, the Police Service in Northern Ireland was facing an incredibly serious situation long before recent events. The PSNI was already operating with roughly 1,000 officers below the levels stated in the New Decade, New Approach arrangements. With the consequences of the recent serious data breach and the knock-on impact on police officers and their families, and the mitigation measures that have had to be taken to protect officers, an already stretched policing budget will be stretched yet further. With morale low, the police service is in the middle of a very difficult period. The most recent cuts to the Northern Ireland Department of Justice do little to help the current mood among officers and staff. Can the Minister say whether additional funds can be made available to assist in relation to policing?
There are many areas where this budget underwhelms and underdelivers. I am sure that my noble friends who follow me will be able to give the finer details of the budget. The budget situation in Northern Ireland is very complex and uncertain. Indeed, it requires political leadership and co-operation to find a sustainable solution, particularly around the protocol and the Windsor Framework. I think we all want to see Northern Ireland prospering with a growing economy, attracting inward investment. I want to be able to stand in your Lordships’ House and, once again, laud an uninterrupted period of stable devolved governance. I think we all want to see institutions back up and running, and Northern Ireland in a position to set its own budget.
Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)
My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for explaining the detail of the Bill to the House this afternoon. It is our desire to see an Assembly and a functioning Executive back up and running at Stormont again but we know also that the elephant in the room is the Windsor Framework. It is disappointing that we are in a situation where we are discussing a Bill that should be debated at Stormont with locally elected representatives and Ministers in a functioning Executive.
This debate is about the budget for Northern Ireland. Most debates relating to Northern Ireland are overshadowed by the Northern Ireland protocol and the issues that still need to be addressed in the Windsor Framework. Regrettably, we have been here too many times before; it is true to say that key decisions on health, housing, education and infrastructure have been put on hold in recent months and years because of uncertainty over funding for Northern Ireland. We have had the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the other House tell us that the budget was an appropriate settlement for Northern Ireland departments. I am not surprised that this particular Secretary of State would say that.
The stark reality of this debate is that the budget given to Northern Ireland departments is very much a punishing one. This budget is simply not enough for the effective delivery of vital services across Northern Ireland. We have a growing health service waiting list, a crumbling school estate and infrastructure plans that have been long postponed. It is clear that, on health, infrastructure and, in particular, education, the budget is very bad news. While it is true to say that there is no magic money tree, such punishing cuts as those we are discussing today will be felt by pupils, hospital staff and many of the front-line workers that we all rely on in Northern Ireland.
The budget will hurt economically and will have an impact on the delivery of public services. That has already been alluded to, with the £297 million that is scheduled to be taken from Northern Ireland’s allocation this year and next—a huge sum of money that will impact on many services across Northern Ireland. The Department of Health received more than half the total budget and by far the largest percentage cash increase of all departments. Despite significant savings, a funding gap of £732 million remains. For example, the Department of Education has a funding gap of £382 million. Many of the schools and principals we have spoken to have had to cut many of their schools’ outside activities across Northern Ireland, which is sad in itself. At the Department of Justice, there is a funding gap of £141 million. As has been alluded to, a former chief constable has said that he may not be able to operate policing in the budget that has been handed to him. We are short of 1,000 police officers in Northern Ireland. The list goes on.
When we last addressed a budget in your Lordships’ House, I said then that I hoped that it was the last time we would deliver a budget for Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, we are here again. We want to see a solution that brings long-term, firm foundations for the restoration of political institutions in Northern Ireland; that is what my desire would be. I want to see a solution that brings firm political and financial foundations, which are key to the future of a working Executive. Chronic underfunding in Northern Ireland should not continue. To get Stormont up and running and to begin this process, we must see the remaining issues in the Windsor Framework be resolved as soon as possible.
Viscount Brookeborough (CB)
My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for presenting this budget. I feel rather sympathetic towards him in that he cannot come here for happy debates. One day, I hope that he will be able to do so. Luckily, much of what I was going to say has been said but, in particular, I would like to say that the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, looked at this from an objective point of view and gave one or two extremely appropriate conclusions. I think we get too bogged down in the details of what is going on when we must look at how it really might all collapse.
Of course, our biggest problem is that we have a lack of local democratic accountability, with the absence of an Executive currently as a result of the protocol. Therefore, at present, there is only one democratically accountable legislature: here. Of course, we have heard how the civil service is currently unable, because the Government dictates this, to take many of the actions we would like to see. We have this void, or crevasse, between the refusal of the DUP to take part in the Executive and the refusal of the Westminster Government to interfere with theoretically devolved issues—although there have been cases where they have done so, so it is not an impossibility. Abortion may well have been one of them. They can do it if they wish but they do not wish to do it; of course, they have their reasons for that.
However, it is the 1.9 million people in the Province who suffer the long-term hardship—hardly the politicians or the Government. They suffer the damage to civil society without this democratic accountability and they do not have a say in here. We keep hearing that the position of the Government and the EU is that the protocol, after the Windsor Framework, works okay. I am not totally against it but, to a certain extent, I am fed up with hearing that it is okay because big businesses say that it is. Big businesses can afford to have a back office with half a dozen people scribbling out to cover the regulations but Northern Ireland is not a country of big businesses; there are very few of them. There are thousands of micro-businesses and small SMEs. I know of a haulier whose company, A1 Transport in Fermanagh, employs 85 people. Since this started, he has had to produce 70,000 documents to move his lorries back and forth across the border and to this country. He literally has not got the room to store them. This goes on and there will be even more documents as this business gets tighter.
The DUP has continued, rightly or wrongly, to make a stand against the protocol and the Windsor Framework. I do not like to admit it but the big problem is that so many things that this Government have done have made the average person so very angry in Northern Ireland that they have gone to the extremes. I dare say that the support for the DUP comes largely because people are so unsatisfied with what the Government have done. Legacy was one thing the other day. It has really had a big effect on people; there is a lot of discontent.
However, they are the UK Government and, as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said, they are responsible for the United Kingdom, regardless of devolution or anything else. We, the people in the Province, are caught between two immovable rocks: the DUP and the Government. They are the only people who can ultimately solve this challenge. What we need is real leadership, but we are not getting it. It needs to come from outside those two groups—perhaps from the Prime Minister; we have not seen him involved very much. I am hesitant about the Taoiseach after the things he has said in the last few days; that does not help things either. If we have a compromise or fudge, this problem will return; without a shadow of a doubt, we would be in this position again in no time.
We have major decisions on infrastructure to be made, such as on roads, education and, as we have heard, health. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, talked about the disintegration of health, and I will highlight one particular example, without going through all the different parts. South West Acute Hospital in Enniskillen was a state-of-the-art new build opened by the late Queen in 2012. Believe it or not, it has hundreds of single rooms—no wards—clean air technology in the theatres and everything else. It has served a population of 83,000 people. The Western Health and Social Care Trust has suspended the acute services at the hospital due to financial difficulties and other reasons, such as the absence of direction from a democratic authority telling it to get on with the job. I am aware that the decision is statistical and due to a problem with recruitment—that may be so.
I was once on a hospital board in Belfast. It is a medical requirement for most important hospital interventions, such as childbirth, accidents, disease and whatever else to have acute services somewhere in case things go wrong—the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, knows that better than anybody. Therefore, those somewhat straightforward interventions now have to go somewhere else, in case the patients need acute help. They have to go to Altnagelvin Hospital in Derry. That means that 83,000 people—if they need treatment; obviously not all at once—have to travel for 60 minutes or more. Of those, 68,000 will have to travel for 90 minutes or more, and 25,000 will have to travel for two hours. That is travel time, let alone the acquisition of an ambulance, which is a totally different subject.
In this country we have a universal postal service, as well as the equivalent in education, although we do not call it that, and health—the right of our citizens to access a service, whatever it is. We know that it costs more to post a letter to, or to run a school in, the outer isles—that is what the universal service is about. The removal of services from such a large number of people in Fermanagh and South Tyrone should be considered unacceptable behaviour on the part of an unaccountable body. But it does not have to be unaccountable if the Government make provision for interfering where things are quite clearly wrong. The health status of 83,000 people is being compromised in a manner that is incomparable anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
It has long been NHS policy to take account of the geographical situation and to compensate where necessary. According to the NHS Technical Guide to Allocation Formulae and Pace of Change for 2019-20 to 2023-24:
“Travel time to the next nearest hospital is an indicator of whether or not consolidation of services onto fewer sites is feasible”—
it is not feasible. We used to have a measure called the golden hour; what has happened to that? Believe it or not, the Western Health and Social Care Trust has said that things have changed and the golden hour is no longer the mantra. But what has not changed is the need; it is identical. The road accidents, childbirth issues and diseases are the same, so what has changed? All that has changed is its decision to not go by the golden hour.
There was a consultation and one of the documents was signed by 30,000 people—30% of the population. It was treated by the trust as one entity. It did not like it at all and virtually disregarded it. I know about consultations; we did one for an inquiry here into bank closures. Every major bank that came to us said, “We’re consulting; don’t worry”. We never saw one bank that failed to close or was turned around as a result of any consultation, so I think that the definition in the dictionary ought to be slightly different.
Will the Government live up to what they should be responsible for: ensuring equal treatment and opportunities throughout our nation, regardless of whether the devolved system is in place and working? That says a great deal about levelling up in our nation, does it not?
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I owe a great deal to the personal kindness of the Brookeborough family over many years, including the current noble Viscount, his father and his grandfather. I am particularly glad to follow the noble Viscount, who has given such service to Northern Ireland, particularly when the security situation was at its most difficult. I listened with great enjoyment to his vigorous contribution to the debate.
I speak, as always, as an unwavering supporter of Northern Ireland’s role in our country, which is of such importance to us all. Exactly a century ago, a new unionist Prime Minister took office in Westminster. In May 1923, Andrew Bonar Law was forced to resign because of the cancer that was to kill him the following October; Stanley Baldwin was the new unionist premier. Bonar Law, the only British Prime Minister with an Ulster family background, had devoted himself to protecting the interests of the newly created Northern Ireland; Baldwin was no less diligent.
Bonar Law had ensured that Northern Ireland had the resources and support that it needed to defeat the murderous assault that the IRA mounted against it in 1922. Baldwin helped to safeguard Northern Ireland’s territorial integrity when an independent commission considered whether its boundaries should be revised.
Unionism is more important than Conservatism. I rather wish the party had retained the name that it used proudly a century ago, instead of elevating its Conservative element. As the Unionist Party, it would have retained at its very heart an absolutely overriding sense of responsibility for the varied interests of all parts of our union. I think it is unlikely that Mr Boris Johnson would have become leader of an organisation called the Unionist Party, since he cared nothing for the union, as he showed with his infamous betrayal of Northern Ireland four years ago—the immediate cause of the discontents and difficulties that have assailed our fellow country men and women in Northern Ireland ever since.
It is evident that the Government do not believe that the difficulties and discontents can be brought to an end simply through the restoration of the devolved Assembly and Executive—it will represent just the beginnings of their resolution. Acute financial problems, highlighted in the legislation before us today and mentioned so frequently in the debate, will have to be overcome if Northern Ireland is to have the fully functioning Executive to which reference is so often made—fully functioning in the sense that it works efficiently and successfully.
Speaking in the Second Reading debate on this Bill in the Commons, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said:
“Successive former Executives have failed to make the strategic decisions required to put the public finances on a sustainable basis”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/7/23; col. 101.]
It is of course the duty of our national leaders to ensure that the public finances of Northern Ireland gain the stability that good government within the union requires. The task is formidable indeed.
Earlier this year, we were helped to understand why by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, a personal friend from long ago when I was closely involved in an organisation called the Friends of the Union. Speaking on 7 February, the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, told us that
“no Sinn Féin Minister of Finance has ever succeeded in presenting a Budget which other parties could support … Finance Ministers have to look for support and consensus on the Budget that they bring forward. Every other coalition Finance Minister was able to achieve that, but no Sinn Féin Minister was able to”.—[Official Report, 7/2/23; col. 1183.]
Has Sinn Féin turned over a new leaf since then? Has it undertaken to observe the financial disciplines that are essential for good government? I sometimes think that in this House, we give insufficient attention to the stresses and strains that the involvement of Sinn Féin creates in the administration of Northern Ireland. It is not a conventional political party at all: it is part of a movement dedicated to achieving, by one means or another, the dismemberment of our union, our country. The successful administration of Northern Ireland’s public affairs is unlikely to hold much appeal to Sinn Féin: it is dedicated to the destruction of Northern Ireland.
Every unionist will always insist that Northern Ireland must enjoy all the benefits of being part of our union. I listened the other day to our Health Minister, my noble friend Lord Markham, who touched on the importance of change within the NHS. He said:
“Without a doubt, we have to make productivity improvements and look to technology, AI and all the things we can do to improve output”.—[Official Report, 12/9/23; col. 780.]
I thought to myself that Northern Ireland must have these things, too—in fact, there is no part of our country where they are needed more than in Northern Ireland, where the health service has suffered so seriously in recent years, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, in his boisterous contribution, and from others. It is tragic to think that health and the other great public services immediately cease to have democratic oversight when devolution falters. Elsewhere in the union, these services form part of local government. In Northern Ireland alone, they have been merged with devolved institutions.
It is axiomatic among unionists that Northern Ireland should enjoy good relations with the Republic of Ireland, in the interests of both of them. But it is crucial, if good relations are to be maintained, that the union is given proper respect at all times by Irish politicians. That is surely incompatible with the suggestion made recently that the Irish Government should be given an enhanced role in the affairs of Northern Ireland, including consultation over its budget. Perhaps this extraordinary suggestion reflects Mr Varadkar’s belief that Ireland is on the path to unification. That republican delusion is nothing new, but its repetition at a time when great efforts are being made to restore the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland jeopardises the good relations which unionists want.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, things do not seem to have changed or moved since we debated my amendment to the Finance Bill in May. For reasons that I hope to explain, they have since deteriorated. In order to understand the implications of the Bill before us today, we need to have regard to two key co-ordinates. The first is the UK Government’s definition of need. This is provided by the Holtham formula—an adjustment to the Barnett formula—which the UK Government embraced between 2012 and 2016. It is important to remember that the purpose of adjusting the Barnett formula through the Holtham formula was not to make sure that each part of the United Kingdom received identical funding per head of the population, which is arbitrary and meaningless. Rather, it was to ensure that each part of the United Kingdom receives the funding per head that it needs, mindful of the challenges it faces in order that we all enjoy comparable public services.
This provision of comparable public services underpins the reality of our common community. We recognise that, to be part of a common community underpinned by a common citizenship, we must have the same effective rights, including in relation to public services. In this context, it is no more appropriate to suggest that all parts of the United Kingdom receive identical levels of funding, regardless of need, than it would be to say that some parts of the United Kingdom are worthy of better public services than others. The common body politic of our union cannot make these distinctions. The political community that we enjoy is predicated on a common citizenship wherein the equal value of all citizens is testified to by the provision of comparable public services.
In the words of the Holtham Commission, its purpose was to
“set out our proposal for aligning relative funding with relative needs in a way which we believe is workable, simple to operate and fair to all parts of the UK”.
Crucially, although it was commissioned by the Welsh Government, it was to generate not a Wales needs-based formula but a UK needs-based formula. We can all be grateful to the Welsh Government for performing an important task for every part of the United Kingdom.
The result has been a sophisticated formula that demonstrates that spending per head in Wales must be £115 for every £100 spent in England for there to be comparable service provision. Spending per head in Scotland must be £105 for every £100 spent in England for there to be comparable service provision. For there to be comparable service provision in Northern Ireland, spending per head must be £121 for every £100 spent in England. The UK Government formally adopted this definition of need in 2012. In that year, it indicated a willingness to intervene to align spending in Wales to the definition of the Holtham formula because the Barnett squeeze was such that it would inevitably happen.
In 2016, this commitment was brought into more direct effect through the agreement between the Welsh Government and the United Kingdom Government on the former’s fiscal framework. This consisted of two elements. First, a 5% budget uplift was applied for the purpose of slowing down the Barnett squeeze and thus the point in time when spending per head would reach need. Secondly, a Holtham floor was set at the level of need to ensure that, notwithstanding what the Barnett squeeze might otherwise have done, spend could not fall below need as defined by the Holtham formula. This has been in place ever since. Because spend in Wales has not fallen below need, it has benefited from millions of additional pounds of taxpayers’ money to slow down the Barnett squeeze. Consequently, the level of spend in Wales remains slightly above need.
Although the Holtham formula has not changed, it became necessary to recalculate the Northern Ireland definition of need using that formula because the Holtham calculations were made before the devolution of justice. Earlier this year, the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council used the Holtham formula to update the Northern Ireland figure so that it was fully cognisant of the breadth of current devolution. The outcome of this project was the publication on 2 May of a seminal Fiscal Council document demonstrating that the current Northern Ireland definition of need is £124. This is our first co-ordinate.
The second co-ordinate is the UK Government’s definition of spend for the current spending review period, set out in the Treasury’s block grant transparency document. When aspects of this document are updated, as in July this year, the basic definition of relative need between Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland is calculated only by the block grant transparency document at the start of each spending review period.
This is because the task of coming up with fair, comparable figures, mindful of administrative and other difficulties within the UK, is resource-intensive. As such, the block grant transparency measure of spend provides the only robust comparable measure of spend across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland for the three-year spending review period. It is on this basis that decisions are made for the period about what needs to happen in Wales to ensure that its funding does not fall below the definition of need provided by the Holtham formula.
The Treasury defines relative spend between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as relative funding per head averaged over the SR21 period 2022-23 to 2024-25. This is found in table 4C of Block Grant Transparency: December 2021. In dealing with the current spending review period of 2022 to 2025 in Wales, decisions protecting the Holtham floor definition of need and the 5% uplift are made for the spending review period on the basis of this block grant transparency average measure of relative spend for the three years—and not any other definition.
This does not mean that other figures will not emerge but, crucially, to be treated consistently and fairly, decisions about requisite interventions in Northern Ireland with respect to protecting spending to the Holtham definition of need—and an uplift in the event that our spend was still slightly above need—must be based on the definition of spend in Block Grant Transparency: December 2021. In Wales, the definition of spend in the document for the spending review period is £120, while in Northern Ireland it is £121. That means that in Wales, spending for the spending review period has been deemed to be £5 above need, so it has not been necessary to apply a spending floor at the Wales level of need of £115, but Wales benefits throughout from the provision of the 5% uplift, which slows down the Barnett squeeze and involves spending taxpayers’ money to keep spending in Wales above need.
By contrast, Northern Ireland’s situation has deteriorated such that we have missed out on uplift because spending has not fallen to need but to £3 below need. This is a hugely disruptive change, visited on us very suddenly since 1 April 2022. It means that, in this spending review period, in 2022-23 we were underfunded by £322 million. In this year, 2023-24, we are underfunded by £341 million and in 2024-25, we will be underfunded by £458 million. This injustice is greatly compounded by our being required to pay back £297 million across this and the next financial year.
When we confront the scale of the underfunding, the fact that Northern Ireland is currently in the midst of an acute funding crisis—and there is a need for funding cuts in the round—is no surprise at all. It is affecting all aspects of life, from SEN funding to childcare provision, which a recent report by the campaign group Melted Parents NI shows is more expensive in Northern Ireland than any other part of the United Kingdom.
I thank the Minister for bringing this budget to your Lordships’ House. I wish it would go to Stormont. Maybe one day things will dictate that it goes that way. Until then, this is the only way and the Government have a responsibility. When things crank up, the Government have to do some heavy lifting. They are refusing to do it at this time but I thank the Minister for this report today.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I join others in thanking the Minister for bringing this forward. If I am critical of the Government, I hasten to add that it is nothing personal. To paraphrase “The Godfather”, “It was only business—tell Lord Caine that I like him”. Where I make criticisms of the Government, it is not to detract from the Minister’s contribution today. The level of disappointment here—irrespective of whether we have a devolved settlement—is to do with the inadequacy of funding provided for public sector services in Northern Ireland by this budget. As the previous speaker, my noble friend Lord Morrow, highlighted, this reinforces the position in 2022.
As anyone who has been involved with any government department will know, that department often has a wish list of things that it would like to do—desires, if you like. But this is not about desires for public service expenditure; this is about public service expenditure needs. Since the beginning of 2022, for possibly the first time—certainly since 2015, when the Holtham formula was largely adopted by the Government—we see a region of the United Kingdom funded below its objective needs. As highlighted by my noble friend Lord Morrow, the figures were produced by the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council, in addition to other bodies. It should be noted that the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council is a government body, not a think tank or a lobby group. It identified the shortfall last year as £322 million; this year it is £431 million. That is £0.75 billion over two years, exacerbated by the money that has had to be paid back over the past two years because of last year’s overspend, which would not have arisen in the first place had there been proper levels of funding.
That needs to be seriously addressed. In the long run there is a need to look at the Barnett formula in great detail. The Barnett consequential squeeze has meant that since 2019, on average, UK expenditure has gone up by about 6% per annum; in Northern Ireland it is 3.6%, with the result of where we are today. That indicates why there is a longer-term need to look at Barnett. As indicated, the Holtham formula can produce a solution, at least in the short term. It probably took about seven years of discussions between the Welsh Government and the UK Government to get adoption—I expect the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, will be more familiar with this—but when it was adopted it was meant to be a UK-wide formula so that it could be applied to Northern Ireland to provide a level of support.
I am the first to acknowledge that there is a need for reform in public sector provision, as there is throughout the United Kingdom. This is good because we should always be looking at how we can get the best value from our public services for the expenditure put in place. However, I add at least three caveats. First, any form of public sector reform often requires initial investment to produce savings. It is not something that will produce an instantaneous result. Secondly, in my experience, whatever the value of public sector reform, in and of itself it is not enough to fill the gap: we need additional expenditure. Specifically in Northern Ireland, do we believe that, even in a restored situation, Sinn Féin in particular, given its track record on public sector reform, will embrace it or even just tolerate it? In the past it has moved to block and veto any reform and we would be deluding ourselves if we think that will be an easy route.
As for the current budgets, the department with which I am most familiar is the Department of Education, where the permanent secretary has identified a shortfall of over £300 million on current activities. That needs to be contextualised because it is simply doing what it is already committed to. It does not take into account the fact that, for the last two or three years, we have not had an agreement between the teaching unions and the management side, so teachers’ pay in Northern Ireland is considerably less than in the rest of the United Kingdom. If there was an agreement tomorrow, there simply would not be the money to pay that level of uplift.
The fact is that we are unable to progress childcare. Again, the level of provision and entitlement for parents is the least of anywhere in the United Kingdom. More than 80% of the education budget goes directly in salaries to front-line workers. Much of the remainder falls under a situation in which parents have a statutory right to access various things as legal requirements. The headroom within the Department of Education to meet that shortfall is extremely limited.
That means that, like some of the cuts already made, any of the pressures in the Department of Education will have to be met by targeting the most vulnerable in our society. For example, the report A Fair Start identified that the interventions required to tackle educational underachievement, particularly among the economically disadvantaged, will not be able to progress in the way that they are meant to. It means that SEN pupils, particularly those identified, will not have the resources and support that they need. It means that, because some of the programmes designed to try to boost those who have issues around educational underachievement and the socially disadvantaged are not statutory, they are the first that any department will cut. That is the crisis we face in education.
I conclude by mentioning another subject that should have been a good news story from a financial point of view but has been handled in a deeply dismaying way. Earlier this week, we saw the announcement of a package of support, spanning a number of years, through the PEACE PLUS programme. This is designed to support Northern Ireland and the border counties in the Republic of Ireland. The source of more than 85% of its funding came from the British Government and I commend them for it. However, the presentation of the announcement by the Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, made it look largely like this was an intervention by the Irish Government. I have to say that both his recent comments on a united Ireland and the overreach from the Irish Government on PEACE PLUS are deeply unhelpful. When the Minister is winding up, I would be grateful if he could address the situation with PEACE PLUS and the presentation of its funding sources.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
I am grateful, as we are all, for the Minister’s presentation of this budget. We all recognise the need for it and agree to process it rapidly, because services in Northern Ireland depend on it. It is fair to say, however, that every speaker has identified that, in reality, it represents a shortfall.
As mentioned, there was a debate in the other House about how this almost looks like a punishment. The Secretary of State has denied that. We know, partly because of the financial mismanagement of government, that there is no money across the piece but, in this situation, why is Northern Ireland being squeezed harder than anywhere else, given the circumstances? Could the Minister explain why this is quite so tight, if it is not part of the pressure to get the Assembly back up and running?
The implications of this are, for example, that the other devolved bodies, Scotland and Wales, can negotiate pay agreements that do not appear possible in Northern Ireland, because the money is not there to fund them. This means that public sector workers in Northern Ireland will be disadvantaged relative to those in other parts of the United Kingdom if this settlement is not supplemented. Basic cash affordability needs to be addressed.
Looking at the summary of all the departments, with the exception of health and infrastructure, every single one is facing a cash cut. The real-terms cut across the piece averages 16%. The issue there is the expectation of problems for health and education. I am told that it means that no new school building programme will be followed. Although it is a very small department and the amount of money is small, the Authority for Utility Regulation is being cut by 40%, yet utility regulation is quite important. Could the Minister suggest why that is and what the implications are?
The contributions we have received have been interesting. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, went through all these points in detail and made a very clear case for why the pressures in Northern Ireland need to be addressed and, of course, why we need an Assembly up and running.
It slightly took my breath away when the noble Lord, Lord Browne, opened his speech by saying that he wished this budget was being presented to the Northern Ireland Assembly. He implied that it was almost anybody’s fault that that was not happening other than the DUP’s. I am hopeful because every single DUP contribution has said that the DUP wants this to happen. That is, perhaps, an early indication that we are getting to the point where it might happen and this will never happen again. I can look cheerfully across and say that if that is the implication, I welcome it and look forward to hearing it because this cannot continue.
On a more serious point, the argument for why an agreement cannot happen is to do with the protocol and the Windsor Framework. I think the way it is put is that a foreign power makes rules binding on Northern Ireland, on which Northern Ireland has no say. We used to have a say, because we used to be part of that foreign power and we were able to make decisions and representations through elected representatives. The DUP campaigned to end that and these are the consequences.
It is worth noting that this week Apple has introduced its new iPhone. It will have a new connection—no longer a lightning connector but a USB-C connector, in conformity with the rules adopted by the European Union. Apple is an American company. Apple and the American Government have absolutely no say in the formulation of those rules, but Apple—the biggest company in the world—has had to conform to them. That is the reality when you trade; you negotiate terms but you also have to accept terms.
The problems that I acknowledge still exist within the Windsor Framework need to be addressed; we had a debate about that earlier this week. A very good committee report suggested how they might be addressed, but I suggest that they do not justify the continued dysfunction of the Assembly. There are issues that need to be addressed but I contend that they should be addressed from inside, not outside, if they are to be resolved.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, basically said that the people of Northern Ireland are caught between the DUP and the Government. That is, I suppose, a practical fact. The challenge to the Minister—not the Minister here; to be fair, my challenge goes to other Ministers—concerns the initiatives that the Government are prepared to take to try to break the deadlock. They share some degree of blame for the impasse. It is not all the DUP’s fault; the Government have some responsibility for that and some responsibility for trying to resolve it. I think that was the point that the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, wanted to make.
The noble Lord, Lord Morrow, gave us a very detailed exposé of the Holtham formula. Speaking from a Scottish perspective, the problem with that formula is that it represents—I know what he will say—a significant cut in the per capita allocation that Scotland currently enjoys. It is something that the SNP is unwilling to acknowledge but it is a fact. On the other hand, it probably genuinely addresses the need, as the noble Lord, Lord Weir, pointed out, not the desires. Northern Ireland needs more than it is being given just to stand still, never mind to catch up with the serious situation it faces. So I think we have to accept that we will pass this budget today—
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I appreciate the point that the noble Lord has made in relation to the Scottish situation, but one advantage of the Holtham formula is that it is meant to provide a floor rather than a ceiling. From that point of view, it would not obviate a level of cutting funding for Scotland but ensure that areas such as Wales and Northern Ireland do not fall below a minimum.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
I accept that. It is a perfectly fair point. For a long time, Wales has argued that the Barnett formula has not worked well for it, and it has not worked for Northern Ireland. The issue has not been the Barnett formula but historic spending. I speak not as a nationalist but in terms of Scottish representation. Any suggestion that the formula should cut back in Scotland would be politically unacceptable and pretty disruptive. I accept that what it offers is a framework for Wales and Northern Ireland to get fairer allocation than has been the case. Again, that is a responsibility for the UK Government to address. The devolved Administrations can ask for it, but it is up to the UK Government to determine whether they will do anything about it. But it has real validity.
As I said, we will pass this budget, and it will provide the immediate funds that are necessary, but it will leave Northern Ireland in a powerless situation where all the issues affecting the United Kingdom are significantly worse in Northern Ireland across the whole spectrum—every aspect of the public service, whether waiting lists or the general problem across infrastructure. I therefore ask the Minister: at what point, assuming there is a point, will the Government recognise that this needs to be addressed? As I said at the beginning, if it is not a punishment, is there nevertheless a reward at some point that can be secured? There needs to be.
My final point is the obvious plea for the Assembly and the Executive to be re-established, because it is just not acceptable that the people of Northern Ireland’s elected representatives are not meeting to debate these issues, make these recommendations, draw up their own budgets and, yes, make collective representation to the UK Government if they feel the overall funding level is not adequate. We are all weary of saying to the DUP to get back to the table and get back in, but we must say to them that this cannot go on and, if it does for very much longer, then, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie says, the demand for reform will come louder and louder. I suggest that such reform would not be entirely comfortable to members of the DUP. I am trying to make a rational appeal, as it is in the DUP’s real interest. They have a better chance of having their concerns—which I accept are legitimate from their perspective in many cases—addressed if they address the democratic deficit than by sitting and making the sort of speeches that they have made: “We all wish there was an Assembly, but there is not, and it is somebody else’s fault”. That is not good enough. The DUP have it in their hands to get it right. If they do, then they can start to negotiate with other parties and the Government to say, “This budget is not enough; Northern Ireland deserves better”, and, collectively, they will get it. I hope the Minister will acknowledge that, at some point or other, if that happens, there is space to negotiate.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, it has been said by nearly everybody who has taken part in this debate that we should not be having it and that this should be decided by the representatives of the people of Northern Ireland at Stormont. But we are where we are, so we clearly need to support the Government so that Northern Ireland can have some money. Without the Bill, its public services will not function. The debate today—this is a money Bill, so ultimately this is a matter for the Commons—is about whether in fact there is sufficient money and whether things would be different if there were a restored Executive.
On the first part, it is not as simple as saying that Northern Ireland is the same as everywhere else in the UK. It obviously and clearly is not. I was looking at English counties and which ones might be comparable to Northern Ireland in geography and population. One that I looked at was Hampshire, which has a population of just under 2 million people—the same as Northern Ireland. Hampshire County Council has doubtless grumbled and complained over the last number of years about the level of rate support grant that it gets from the Government, in the same way that Northern Ireland would complain that there simply has not been sufficient public funding for public services in the whole of the United Kingdom. There is a difference, however, between Hampshire and Northern Ireland. A lot of my time in the two years that was the Finance Minister for Northern Ireland was spent persuading my Treasury colleagues in particular that there was a difference, and that they had to make sure that the part of our country that had come out of 30 years of conflict was treated differently financially from anywhere else. Although it is a quarter of a century since the Good Friday agreement, the impact of those 30 years remains.
The other issue is that the basis for getting income in Northern Ireland is very different from Hampshire, in that Hampshire is much more prosperous than Northern Ireland. The level of resourcing—if you look at the different sorts of local taxation—does not actually bring in an awful lot of money in Northern Ireland. When we were discussing the strand 1 negotiations before the Good Friday agreement, I remember that we came to a day devoted to finance for Northern Ireland. We spent one hour on it, on the basis that there simply was not sufficient money for a special income tax, for example, to come from the people and the businesses of Northern Ireland. However, I am sure that that does not mean that we cannot look—or that the Assembly could not look in later years—at issues like water rates, which are paid everywhere else in the United Kingdom but not in Northern Ireland, although it will be argued that, in Northern Ireland, the rates form part of that. There are possibilities, but that is not the answer.
What is certain is that there is the combination of difficult financial circumstances in Northern Ireland and the fact that there is no Government. There is a county council in Hampshire which is elected and has to take the decisions; nothing is elected in Northern Ireland to take those sorts of decisions. They are not even really taken by direct rule Ministers. Although we are producing a budget here, we are not saying how to spend that budget. So, what do the Government do? We agreed with the Government on allowing civil servants to take decisions on budgets, but how far can they go? They cannot take decisions on policy, they cannot take decisions on programmes and they cannot take decisions on spending commitments. In other words, all they can do is oversee the ticking over of the budgets in departments.
That combination, where no meaningful decisions can be made on those issues, means that nearly every department in Northern Ireland is paralysed in terms of its spending. I will not go through it, because Members of your Lordships’ House have gone through, in detail, the effect on the health service, the education services, the police—particularly the result of the leak—and the criminal justice system and so on. They are all in serious trouble, because of not just a lack of funding but a lack of decision-making.
That combination is lethal, so how do we overcome it? There is one obvious way, but there are others too. The Treasury itself should be made to realise that Northern Ireland is different. The Treasury is not known for backing a long-term strategy and long-term issues. It is a very short-termist department—it always has been and I suspect always will be. It is therefore up to the Prime Minister and the other members of the Cabinet to persuade the Treasury that things are different in Northern Ireland.
That also applies to the point made by several speakers, including very effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, with regard to the Barnett formula. Yes, that formula was introduced by a Member of this House many years ago, but he disowned it eventually and indicated that an element of need had to be taken into account when exercising formulae for spending in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. As has rightly been said, the Welsh Government looked very carefully at the issue with the Holtham commission and came up with a formula which means that the amount of money now going to Wales is based on proper need. I cannot see for one second why the Government cannot look at that formula in relation to Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is obviously in great need, and those people who are most deprived in Northern Ireland are suffering most because of the absence of an Assembly and the absence of adequate funding.
The other perhaps small issue that could be looked at is that, apparently, every month in Northern Ireland the government departments issue communiqués about what they have done. It might be useful if they issued communiqués about what they cannot do: “We can’t do this, because there is no Assembly” or “We can’t do that, because there are no Ministers”. That might indicate how significant this is.
My final point is that this can be resolved only when you have a democratic system running government in Northern Ireland. We need the restoration of the Assembly and the Executive and the restoration of strand two on north-south issues—all those must be resolved ultimately and soon—for the issue of finance to be resolved. It is a huge issue. I am hoping that, in the next few months, the Minister can come to the Dispatch Box and tell us what is exactly is happening with those negotiations and that soon there will be a restored Assembly and Executive for all of the people of Northern Ireland.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful, as ever, to all noble Lords who have contributed to this important debate on the budget. In particular, I acknowledge the kind words of the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme. To continue his “The Godfather” analogy, I set out the budget provisions today and made the DUP an offer that it certainly has refused.
At the outset, picking up on the words of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen—for whom, as I have said many times, I have a huge respect—and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, and others who have spoken about the restoration of the Stormont institutions, there is nothing I would like more than to stand at this Dispatch Box and announce the restoration of the institutions and a fully functioning Executive and Assembly. I am a firm supporter of the 1998 agreement, as are His Majesty’s Government. As I said at the outset, we are working tirelessly to try to bring about that situation. I am not in a position, as noble Lords will understand, to give a commentary on progress. My right honourable friend said earlier in the week that some significant progress has been made. Noble Lords behind me have pointed out the issues around the Windsor Framework that still need to be resolved before they feel confident to go back into an Executive. Just to be clear, His Majesty’s Government never felt that they were justified in pulling out of the institutions in the first place—and before any of them stand up, my comments would apply equally to the actions of Sinn Féin between 2017 and 2020. We believe the right place for the Northern Ireland parties is within the Executive running local services for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland.
My right honourable friend has made some progress. In response to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, I can assure her that we are not talking to just one political party in Northern Ireland. Shortly before the Summer Recess, I spent a day with all five major parties in Northern Ireland, and my right honourable friend is in discussions with all of them constantly and will continue to be so. However, she will understand that one party is having difficulty going back into the institutions, and therefore it is right that we seek to look at and address its concerns.
I will not go into the details on the Windsor Framework, as many noble Lords here were present for the very long debate held in Grand Committee on Monday, where my noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon set out extensively and clearly the Government’s position. To reiterate briefly, we believe that the Windsor Framework provides the basis for the restoration of the institutions, but we will continue to work through these issues with the hope of an early resolution.
In the absence of that, a number of noble Lords raised the role of the United Kingdom Government, including the noble Lords, Lord Alderdice and Lord Bruce of Bennachie, and the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough. As the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, pointed out, we have given powers to civil servants to take certain decisions in the public interest in Northern Ireland essentially to keep public services moving. As I said when I introduced the legislation—the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act and the Northern Ireland (Interim Arrangements) Act—this is not intended for the long term. These are not sustainable measures for the government of Northern Ireland. The priority has to be to get the institutions back. In the event that that is not possible, we will obviously have to look at what further interventions might need to take place from the United Kingdom Government consistent with our position as the sovereign Government within Northern Ireland. So we do not rule that out, but our priority has to be to work to get the institutions up and running.
A number of noble Lords referred to the allocation of funding in the budget. I am the first to acknowledge to your Lordships that this is a difficult situation and a difficult budget, as noble Lords have pointed out. Unfortunately, it is a reflection of the reality in which we find ourselves, or which the Government found themselves in in October last year when Northern Ireland Ministers vacated their departments under the rules. They left office, and we had to start working with the Northern Ireland Civil Service on the figures and initially uncovered a £660 million black hole in the finances. So we have been working very closely and in tandem with the Northern Ireland Civil Service in order to address that situation. I am the first to admit that it is challenging, and I pay tribute to the head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service and the heads of the Northern Ireland departments for the work that they have done with my officials in the Northern Ireland Office to try to establish a basis for putting Northern Ireland’s finances on a sustainable and longer-term footing.
A number of noble Lords referred to individual departments and programmes within individual departments. I am happy to write to noble Lords on that. I do not intend to go into the details of each programme, not least because of time but also because, while the Government have set out the allocations within the budget, within each department it is then for the Permanent Secretaries and officials, absent of political direction from Ministers, to determine the individual allocations internally. The Government have, under the current legislation, no powers to direct or control civil servants within departments on the spending of money and the allocations for individual programmes. However, I will just pick up briefly on the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, who made a very good and powerful pitch for his local hospital in Fermanagh. I am aware of the difficulties, of course, but it is for the Department of Health to allocate funding from its budget of £7.3 billion. We have no powers to direct it, but I acknowledge that he makes a very powerful case.
What I would challenge is the assertion made by a number of noble Lords on the DUP and Opposition Benches that Northern Ireland has suffered from chronic underfunding over a number of years. I remind the House that public spending per capita in Northern Ireland is some 20% higher than the UK average. The settlement in the 2021 spending review was the most generous since the restoration of devolution in 1998-99.
There have been numerous occasions, to which I can testify, when—to follow the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen—the Treasury has recognised the exceptional circumstances of Northern Ireland. In the 2014 Stormont House agreement, with which I was involved, there was an additional £2 billion of extra spending power for the Northern Ireland Executive. There was an extra half a billion in the fresh start agreement in 2015, an extra £1 billion in the confidence and supply agreement, and more money—I think over £2 billion—in New Decade, New Approach. The Government have recognised the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland and I reject the assertion that it has somehow been starved of cash since 2010.
However, I listened with interest, as always, to the noble Lords on the DUP Benches—echoed, to some extent, by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy—about the reform of the Barnett funding formula. Following our last budget debate some months ago, the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, and his colleague the noble Lord, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown, came to see me. We are, as a Government, open to sensible suggestions and discussions around funding. However, I would point out, as noble Lords have, that in respect of the funding reforms in Wales following the Holtham commission, that was a conversation between the United Kingdom Government and the Welsh Government—not a conversation between the UK Government and just one party in Northern Ireland.
These matters are, as has been acknowledged, principally for His Majesty’s Treasury. They would normally take place from Government to devolved Administration. As other noble Lords have pointed out, the negotiations over the Holtham commission took some seven years to resolve. Even if there were a case for reform, and that reform were agreed, it would not necessarily be an overnight fix for the problems or issues we are dealing with in the budget today.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, referred to revenue raising. I point out that it was his noble friend Lord Hain who was the first, I think, to put water charges on the table back in 2006-7, before the restoration of the Executive in 2007 following the St Andrews agreement. The position is that the Government have taken the power and directed the Northern Ireland departments to look at revenue raising or potential revenue raising measures. Those departments reported to the Government some weeks ago. We are now looking, in the absence of an Executive, at directing the departments to consult on some of the options they have presented to us. However, we are not in a position to implement any of those recommendations; we do not have the powers. The purpose of the exercise is to present a range of options for an incoming Executive to examine once devolution has been restored. It is clear that, if the Northern Ireland budget is to be put on a sustainable footing, there will have to be a combination—obviously—of difficult spending decisions and some revenue raising.
I am conscious of time. I listened, as always, with enormous interest and respect to my mentor on many of these matters, my noble friend Lord Lexden, who reminded me of the role of two heroes of mine: Bonar Law and Stanley Baldwin in the 1920s in respect of Northern Ireland. I am tempted to add a third great unionist Prime Minister, Sir James Craig, who was instrumental in the 1920s and 1930s in establishing the funding settlement for Northern Ireland, which has lasted many decades. My noble friend said he regrets the fact that the word “unionist” is no longer used in my party’s name as much as it was. I can assure him that I have always made it clear that I regard the term “unionist” as being as important, if not more so, in our party’s name as “Conservative”—but that is probably a personal view.
My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme, raised the role of the Irish Government. I assure both of them that, of course, matters regarding the budget are entirely strand 1 issues and internal Northern Ireland and United Kingdom matters. Of course we discuss many issues with the Irish Government, but, in the absence of an Executive looking at the budget, it remains that decisions over the budget are entirely for the United Kingdom Government. There is no formal role for the Irish in that, and rightly so.
My noble friend also referred to the words of the Taoiseach earlier this week in respect of a united Ireland. I echo my right honourable friend the Secretary of State’s comments that they were not necessarily the most helpful in the current context. Noble Lords will know that the constitutional position of Northern Ireland is clearly set out in the Belfast agreement, based on the principle of consent. There is no indication whatever that there is anything but a substantial majority for the union and Northern Ireland’s continuing position within it, and I warmly welcome that. This Government’s view is clear: there is no inevitability about a united Ireland, nor is it desirable. The best future for Northern Ireland is within a strong and stable United Kingdom.
I have tried to answer as many points as possible, and I have probably been speaking for slightly longer than I anticipated. If there are any other issues, I am of course happy to take them up outside the Chamber in meetings and correspondence with noble Lords.
Courts (Prescribed Recordings) Order 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bellamy
That the draft Order laid before the House on 17 July be approved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, this draft instrument relates to both transparency and security in our court system. Generally, and for good reason, there is a statutory prohibition on photography and audio recording within court buildings. Photography is prohibited under the Criminal Justice Act 1925, and audio recording is prohibited under the Contempt of Court Act 1981. More recently, Section 32 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 permitted certain exceptions—your Lordships will probably have seen sentencing remarks being broadcast recently in the Crown Court and live-streaming by the Court of Appeal, and there are some other examples. This statutory instrument deals with security and transparency, and it is made under those powers, building on the existing exceptions.
There are four aspects to the statutory instrument. The first is CCTV in court buildings, which is in Articles 5, 6 and 10 of the instrument. CCTV clearly plays a most important role in the safety and security of those who work in, or visit, our courts. The instrument ensures that the continued use of CCTV cameras in court precincts—but not courtrooms—is fully authorised and lawful. Indeed, there is currently CCTV in many court precincts. That is thought to be perfectly lawful, but this statutory instrument puts the issue beyond doubt, in case any issue ever arises in that connection.
The second aspect, in Articles 7 to 9 of the statutory instrument, relates to the use of body-worn video by operational staff. This is already common practice outside court buildings, but there is a legal issue as to whether body-worn video cameras can be lawfully worn within court precincts. Of course, such cameras are worn regularly by those who have to deal with potentially dangerous and difficult situations, such as police officers and prisoner escort staff, particularly staff from the prisoner escort and custody services transporting prisoners to and from the court.
There was a pilot scheme in 2017-18 to pilot the use of body-worn video within court precincts. There was a doubt at that time over the legality of the practice, so it was paused and then the pandemic somewhat overtook events. This provision deals not only with prisoner escort and custody staff but with police officers and court and tribunal security staff. Noble Lords will be aware that wearing body-worn cameras is now common practice in the police force, including when officers are authorised to carry Tasers, in which circumstances they are mandated to wear body-worn video. These updated provisions provide for body-worn video to be worn in the court context, but I emphasise that under Article 9 of the instrument, the body-worn video is not switched on unless there is a security alert or an escape.
The third provision is, I hope, an extremely innocent one. It is the practice in adoption cases for a photograph to be taken of the judge, who robes up for the occasion, with the family. Just in case anybody were ever to challenge that practice, this instrument makes it perfectly clear that photographs taken on that occasion are fully authorised, despite the statutory prohibitions on photography in court buildings.
Lastly, the instrument corrects a small omission in the previous order, the Crown Court (Recording and Broadcasting) Order 2020, which authorised circuit judges and certain others, including High Court judges, to have their sentencing remarks filmed and broadcast. What that earlier order did not quite provide for was the situation that occasionally arises in which the judge sitting in the Crown Court is actually a Court of Appeal judge. That was the situation in the lamentable case of Wayne Couzens, who pleaded guilty to murdering Sarah Everard, which was presided over by a Court of Appeal judge, Lord Justice Fulford. The order amends the earlier instrument to make sure that we have included Court of Appeal judges.
I hope this is relatively straightforward. All stakeholders have been consulted, the Lord Chief Justice has given his assent and I commend the instrument to the House.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I am very happy to say that we support the statutory instrument and the various changes that the Minister outlined. I will just give a couple of comments and anecdotes. The first concerns CCTV in court precincts. I sat on the case—the only time I sat with the Chief Magistrate, as a winger, a magistrate—of a tribunal judge who had been assaulted in the courtroom. Of course, there was no film of that assault, but there was CCTV of the corridors approaching the courtroom, and from that we could see people going in and out, we heard the evidence and we reached our determination. It turned out that the person we convicted of assaulting the judge questioned the CCTV and was looking for the sources of it. The CCTV was able to be provided and we went ahead and convicted the defendant.
I have another small point on which I cannot resist picking up the Minister. On his third point about adoption cases, it is not just judges who do adoptions; magistrates also do them in family courts, and I have done a number myself. They were very happy occasions, and we took many photographs for the records of the families concerned. Nevertheless, we welcome all the minor changes outlined by the Minister and, on that basis, we accept the SI.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I stand entirely corrected by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, in relation to magistrates, whose work I have paid enormous tribute to on previous occasions, and I do so again. We entirely depend on our extremely important lay magistrates and I apologise for the omission, which was correctly drawn to your Lordships’ attention. I comment the instrument to the House.
Private Parking Code of Practice
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Lipsey
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to reintroduce the Private Parking Code of Practice for private parking operators that was withdrawn in June 2022.
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
My Lords, on 2 December last year I parked my car at Abergavenny station, buying 14 days’ parking from the ticket office. There was a train strike on the 16th, so I could not get back on the right day, but I rang a number given by the ticket office to extend my stay by a fortnight. The phone message said it had been extended, but when I returned to the car it had been ticketed by APCOA, the operator.
What followed that experience will be familiar to many in your Lordships’ House. Notices from the company fluttered down on me, demanding payment. All used legal language; none pointed out the simple fact that I cannot be made to pay without court action. My “appeal” was turned down, but it was not an appeal in the normal sense: it was an appeal to the company that had delivered the fine in the first place—what a surprise it was turned down. It passed my debt to a so-called debt enforcement agency. I particularly enjoyed its note saying that it had not received a reply from me and would therefore proceed to legal action, when at no stage had these notices contained an address to which I could reply. I had found other ways to write to it to say that it was not getting a penny out of me without taking me to court.
I looked around the same car park the other day. Yes, there was a notice by the spot I parked in; it was in Welsh. Yes, there was a machine to pay at; however, it was covered in polythene that said it was not in use any more. Yes, it said I could pay at the ticket office, except that was not open—indeed, it may soon be closed permanently. As an averagely intelligent person, I could find no accessible way to pay. I therefore parked off-site and, believe it or not, my car was towed away—a bad day for Lipsey.
Of course, this may mean no more than that APCOA, the firm concerned, is impossibly incompetent, but after this experience and reading government documents and press coverage about these companies, I am more inclined to believe in a conspiracy theory, although I am not given to them. These companies have one object and one object only, and that is to maximise the amount of money they can make from charges. They make it either difficult or impossible to pay, and they utter empty threats to bully the poor motorist into coughing up, together with blandishments of reduced charge if he or she does so. I understand that the company’s CEO is a Mr Philippe Op de Beeck. Certainly, his skills and those of his company would befit the mafia: Philippe, “capo dei capi”.
At this point in my speech, I would normally turn my attention to what the Government have done. After 13 years in power, this kind of abuse remains, so far as I can see, legal and unchecked. How the Government manage to criticise my party, the Labour Party, for being tough on motorists, when they allow this kind of abuse to flourish, simply escapes me. I bet there are many more people who are cross about the illegal parking charges levied by these companies than about ULEZ.
Anyway, the Government did finally act: in February 2022 they produced a draft code of practice. The parking companies behaved exactly as you would expect the Mafia to behave: they threatened judicial review, a kind of SLAPP action designed to deter the Government from taking the action they were threatening to take. And did the Government play the part of hero—one of those brave cops who chased the Mafia down the streets of Salerno? No, of course not. They threw in their hand, so actions such as APCOA’s against me could go on extracting money from unsuspecting motorists who had done absolutely nothing wrong.
This is a sad tale—particularly for me, but for many others who have had similar experiences. However, in this case, I am absolutely delighted to say that it may have a happy ending. In July, the Government produced a new consultation document designed to pave the way for a new code, not dissimilar to the old one. The greedyguts of the parking industry will no doubt continue to argue that any charge limits proposed are excessive and make their trade uneconomic. You hear weepy tales of all the poor parking attendants who will be made redundant if the charges have to be reduced at all. Whether the code will deal with every abuse the parkers now commit, we shall see.
I pray every night that APCOA carries out its threats and brings a court action against me—a court action it will assuredly lose, and with it such reputation as it may have. It would be a great story for the pro-motorist press—the Daily Mail or the Express—to report. Not only have I been able to study this subject, but I had an excellent chat with the Minister last night and I thank her for finding such a length of time for an appointment with a Member of this House on what is probably not the most important piece of business this week—although many people might disagree with that. I am very grateful to her, and I think we saw eye to eye.
I hope therefore that the Minister, when she rises, will confirm that the Government really are determined to act, irrespective of judicial reviews, that the parking industry, which has started to realise that it cannot win this one at the end of the day, that the public hates it and that its position is insupportable, will realise that the game is up, and that ripped-off motorists throughout the country will come to realise that they are not powerless against their abusers—not while this Parliament exists to stand up for them.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, on securing this debate. It is, perhaps, a slightly strange moment to have it, being right in the middle of the call for evidence to which he referred, which closes on 8 October. We might have perhaps had the debate when we had made a bit more progress, as he indicated—but so be it.
I remind your Lordships of my interests and inform your Lordships of my employer.
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but my Motion was put down long before the new document came out.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that clarification. None the less, we find ourselves in a very poorly attended debate for 90 minutes, possibly due to its timing, which might have been deferred. So be it.
I was drawing your Lordships’ attention to the fact that my employer, Cavendish Financial, acts from time to time for clients in the parking sector, but purely to offer corporate finance advice and on no other matters. I first spoke on this subject in the debate on my noble friend Lord Hunt’s private Bill, which became the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, on 18 January 2019. I think that I am the only speaker from the Second Reading of that Bill present today.
Very many people have an interest in parking. There are some 250 billion vehicle miles travelled in the UK every year, and, interestingly, vehicle ownership has increased by 57% since 1994. I do not accept the suggestion that this Government are anti-motorist, particularly since the most egregious anti-motorist act was taken by the Labour Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan. I was canvassing in Uxbridge and South Ruislip and felt the degree of irritation that people were, in effect, prohibited from driving their cars into central London by the ULEZ charge.
I was motivated, in part, to speak in my noble friend Lord Hunt’s debate because Westminster City Council had moved dramatically to reduce the single yellow lines available in its borough and increase the double yellow lines. My freedom of information request revealed that, in one ward alone, some 433 metres of single yellow lines had been lost to double yellow lines. It is true that many people claim that the main benefit of being elevated to the peerage is to have free parking in SW1. I am not sure that that is entirely fair; none the less, many of us have a strong interest in this matter.
In the debate on the Bill, we heard from its sponsor, my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, that there were a lot of issues facing customers, relating largely to appeals, poor signage and collection—as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, mentioned. The Bill received widespread support from all sides of the House but was of course challenged by a judicial review—which the parking operators are more than entitled to do. While I certainly take some exception to a British industry being described as a “mafia” when it is carrying out regular, lawful business, I accept that the challenge does not seem to have been handled well by the then DHCLG. I gather that the officials were slightly out of their depth and, as a result, we have been in abeyance. But there is a call for evidence and I understand that discussions between the new department and the industry have taken place as recently as this week.
So the implementation of the private parking code of practice has stalled, primarily due to the proposed imposition of a reduction in the value of parking charges and the removal of debt recovery fees, without any impact assessment being carried out. DLUHC, as it is now called, has claimed that the increase in the number of parking charges issued over the past decade is indicative of a system that is inherently unfair and not fit for purpose. It is seeking to reduce the number of charges issued and to see more people being able to park with peace of mind. However, its proposal to reduce the deterrent value of a parking charge is counterintuitive; it is more likely to lead to an increase in abuse, reducing the available parking for compliant motorists who do the right thing.
DLUHC also proposed a ban on debt recovery fees, on the grounds that they were not fair, and related that to the fact that motorists who pay the debt recovery fee were contributing to unrecovered costs from motorists who do not pay. That would appear to be the norm across a number of sectors and most industries, certainly including all the retail sector; the difference between the parking sector and a standard business is that the cost of parking enforcement tends to be borne by the non-compliant motorists and not the compliant motorists. So the bone of contention seems to be about the amounts that can be charged and debt collection.
On the amounts to be charged, clearly if they are too low, they will not be a deterrent. At the moment, only 0.27% of parking events led to a PCN, suggesting that the deterrent is high enough to bite. As I understand it, the industry is, in principle, in agreement. The majority of the rest of the code and the trade associations are aligning their codes with the single code, where practicable and, hopefully, with a view to early adoption.
The rest of the code will continue to drive professionalism and improve standards while codifying minimum standards across the sector and adding layers of external oversight. It would be a win-win if the two contentious and unjustified points were removed from the code and the rest was immediately adopted. There is scope for the value of parking charges and debt recovery fees to be reviewed by the scrutiny and oversight board after the code is implemented and its effect properly considered and reviewed.
The code of practice talks about charges as low as £50, dropping to £25 outside of London. Let us think about this. If four people share a car and take it to, say, a railway station and park illegally, would they think it too painful to share a £25 charge for the car to be left somewhere that could inconvenience their fellow citizens? Even in London, £80 falling to £40 means that there would not be enough bite; even TfL recognises this and has just increased its deterrent from £130 to £160.
As for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, about the charges being unpopular, 81% of respondents to a DHCLG consultation undertaken earlier were in favour of charges of at least £80 and even £100 or £120. The current proposals represent a 58% reduction in deterrent for most common breaches outside London. For some reason, charges by local authority councils outside London are set by His Majesty’s Government but not in London. I have no idea why; perhaps my noble friend the Minister can explain it. Of course, with inflation, the £100 set in 2012 should really be £137 now.
Parking fines affect only a small proportion of motorists and businesses—in particular retailers, who need motorists to feel encouraged to come to shop and carry goods home with them easily.
Finally, I mention APCOA, which the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, referenced, in respect of one specific matter: Heathrow. It is not exactly a parking charge but it is in lieu of one that, when one goes to Heathrow, one has to pay a £5 penalty for visiting. I do not object to that in principle but I object to the method by which payment is required, which is that one has to go to a website, enter details then hope that it has been processed properly on the basis that you know if it has been but you do not know if it has not. I suggest to my noble friend the Minister that an idea might be to require Heathrow and other airports to have a tap machine that, as one passes, pays the £5 charge, thus negating the necessity of having to go to a website. Most people are slightly stressed when travelling to an airport and have other things on their mind. It would be great if regulation were brought in to make that payment simpler.
Let us hope that common sense prevails and that the code is brought in with sensible levels as soon as possible.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
I thank my noble friend Lord Lipsey for bringing this short debate to your Lordships’ House. I think he was rather kind to the car parking companies because he has to listen to what some people out there actually think about them.
Anyway, there are 40 million cars on the road. Most drivers are responsible but some of them park illegally and get fined; I and my wife were fined once. Responsibility also lies with the car parking company, which sometimes cuts corners with signs and tries to entrap innocent, unsuspecting drivers with the latest sophisticated CCTV—more about that later.
Over the years, I have run all kinds of businesses, including shops, cafés, car parks and so on. The car parking business is one of the least labour-intensive businesses because of the latest technology. These days, every time I pay my car parking fee, I hardly ever see anyone walking around with a yellow jacket like we used to all those years ago. Last year, the car parking industry told the Government that, if they introduced a new code of practice, it would lose thousands of jobs. I disagree. The car parking business is a cash cow. Compared to other businesses, it has far fewer workers yet it is far more profitable. The industry’s threat of job losses if the Government did not introduce a statutory code does not stack up.
This is an industry worth more than £3 billion. There are well over than 40 million cars on the road. The public need to park somewhere when they go about their business. They need assurance that they are getting value for money when they pay for car parking. I do not know of any other industry that is so big and yet is not properly regulated. The Government should introduce a statutory code of practice as soon as possible. Furthermore, there should be an ombudsman to oversee any dispute relating to fines or pricing, like Ofgem and Ofcom. Perhaps it should be called Ofpark and be financed by the parking industry.
I want the Government to take note of this point. Designated car parks, such as those operated by NPC or in a hospital or at an airport, are clearly proper car parks with payment required at the entrance or exit. During the past 10, 15 or 20 years, we have seen the advent of very clever CCTV cameras. They are now everywhere. They are on private land belonging to pubs, supermarkets—any location you can think of. The cameras are looking and waiting to catch drivers out. Most drivers know they are there and take precautions, either paying or leaving their number in the computer inside the shop or supermarket.
The signage is the problem. Signs are 60 centimetres by 80 centimetres, mostly tucked away somewhere in a corner, in the dark or covered in dust. They inform drivers that, if they do not pay, they will be fined. Some people get caught out. A few days later, a letter arrives with a photograph of your car number plate and threatening legal language saying that, if you do not pay up, you will be taken to court. Most drivers pay up because they cannot be bothered to appeal or go to court, which is time-consuming and can mean taking time off work. This is what happens. It is nothing more than a page out of Del Boy’s book of money-making scams: “Come on, Rodney. Let’s stick a few of these clever CCTV cameras here and there, give a certain percentage to the owners and keep the rest. Lovely Jubbly!”
I am not disputing the ownership of the land, the owners’ rights or the legality of the practice. It is just the sneaky way in which they try to do this to the motorist. As I said, the problem is about signage. Signs are not clear; they are confusing and misleading. Some innocent, unsuspecting drivers sometimes get caught out. The people who put up the CCTV know the score. The reaction of most drivers on getting one of these letters is, “Oh, I didn’t know there was a CCTV camera. If I had known, I would have done something”.
In introducing a new statutory code, the Government should make it clear that signs in these particular types of car park should be much bigger and displayed clearly on all sides of the car park—at the front, at the back and so on. There should not just be a 60-centimetre by 80-centimetre sign obscurely tucked away in the corner where people can hardly see it. It should be written on the road as well so that, when a driver enters this particular place, they know what will happen if they do not pay up.
The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has accepted that this practice by a small number of cowboy companies is unacceptable. DVLA data estimate that, between 2022 and 2023, more than 2.8 million drivers will be fined. In recent years, the number of car parking companies has grown expeditiously because there is easy money in it.
The AA has said that:
“Private parking companies are acting like pirates, plundering innocent drivers”.
The RAC Foundation said that parking companies were booming like the “Wild West”. I have here some other examples from newspapers. A lady was fined £100 for being 21 seconds over the—
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord is perfectly within his time limit; I just encourage him not to use props in the Chamber.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for reminding me. I did think that I still had three minutes left.
The Government need to introduce a statutory code for the parking industry as soon as possible, to sort out the fines and so on. Also, the Government might be aware that, in some local authorities, you can only pay via an app. If you do not have a phone on you or do not know how to use the app, you are in trouble. Perhaps the Government can look at that as well.
I have a lot more examples, but I had better take it easy—I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I appreciate it.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful for the indulgence of the House in allowing me to speak in the gap.
I thought that we had tamed the worst excesses of parking operators with the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, but clearly that is not so. In some ways, these problems were unforeseen at that time because, as we increasingly pay by app and by debit and credit card, it becomes the case that the more technology that there is the more technology there is to go wrong.
I want very briefly to bring to the Minister’s attention a recent complaint that came my way about a station car park. I do not expect her to be able to answer at this moment, but I hope that the issue will be considered. For Northallerton car park, you must register on the APCOA site. It seems that you must pay a £1 fee to a company called Alltainment, which appears to be linked to the apcoaconnect website, although Alltainment appears to be a digital entertainment site. The complainant who came to me said that the site tried to take £39.99 from her credit card, until her bank intervened to urge caution. What is the link between APCOA and this apparently related company? Why are the operators of station car parks operating in such an apparently dubious manner?
In this case, to add insult to injury, when the complainant tried to get on to the website to complain and to set up the system again, the website told her that there were no car parks to be found at Northallerton station, despite the fact that she was standing in one and had parked her car in one and the signs were all around her to say that one existed. That level of inefficiency causes huge frustration among the public. I would be grateful if the Minister could, in time, respond to me in writing about this issue.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lipsey for a very timely debate—which reminds us that this important issue is still outstanding business—and for his very colourful introduction. As ever, I thank our Library for the thorough and helpful briefing on this subject. As a council leader until very recently, I am afraid that parking is one of the subjects guaranteed to make my blood run cold and the mention of double or single yellow lines by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, did nothing to help that feeling.
Of course, the difference between local authority parking proposals and those from the private sector is that local authority-run schemes generally recycle both the parking charges and the fines for breaching them to improve the local area. But whether parking schemes are operated by local authorities or the private sector, they have a tricky balance to strike between ensuring that parking is available and managed well, keeping our roads passable and having reasonable enforcement processes that will dissuade irresponsible parking.
The code was introduced to tackle some of the very sharp practices of some operators that were becoming notorious as their operations expanded. The figures for the proliferation of private parking schemes are eye-watering, as are the increases in the number of tickets issued. Parking fees amounted to an estimated £2.62 billion in 2021-22, a figure which has doubled since 2017-18, so the companies’ plea of poverty has a bit of hollow ring. There were 8.6 million parking tickets issued last year—about 23,000 a day.
The introduction of the code in 2022 was widely welcomed by motorists and the organisations representing them. It enshrined the common-sense practices and transparency that they wanted to see and was a relatively modest ask of the private parking sector. Who would not want to see better signage and marking, clarity on ticketing and payment, clarity on how unpaid charges are dealt with and the level of fines, and professional standards about complaints handling? When the code was “temporarily” withdrawn following legal challenges in June 2022, the Government undertook to carry out the impact assessment and consultation that was needed before Summer Recess this year.
When the code was withdrawn, a DfT spokesperson said:
“We’re determined to end rip-off parking practices, and it’s very disappointing that … the parking industry are resisting this”.
However, now we discover that, far from the code being reintroduced in July 2023, the call for evidence was issued only on 30 July—a year after the code had been withdrawn—with a closure date of 8 October, and that needs to be followed by the impact assessment. What is the reason for a delay of a whole year?
One of the complaints of the parking industry was that the introduction of the code would result in the loss of over 3,000 jobs. Can the Minister tell us whether the department has asked to see the workings of this assertion? Has it carried out its own assessment of how accurate that is? My noble friend Lord Sahota raised the point that much of the monitoring and operations are now carried out using electronic surveillance, so can we get clarify whether the 3,000 jobs figure is accurate? Can the Minister reassure motorists that the Government still intend to deal with all issues arising from the previous practices of private parking companies by the use of a strong code of practice combined with enforceable measures on those companies which do not comply?
It seems that some elements in the private parking industry have been unwilling to use, as they could have done, all or part of the code as a set of voluntary guidelines during its suspension. That might have helped convince us of their willingness to adapt to some consumer pressure in this area. They have taken the suspension as an opportunity to carry on just as they were or—as in the worrying case set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson—have actually got worse. Can the Minister tell us how we can support motorists to know where they are with private parking fines, as so many people are now having to carry out their own appeals on matters that would have been covered were the code in place? How quickly do the Government expect to be able to carry out the impact assessment after the call for evidence closes? I suppose the key question here is: just when do we expect to be able to reintroduce this important code of practice?
Nicholas Lyes, the RAC’s head of roads policy, said when the code was withdrawn:
“The fact that parking companies take issue with the capping of charge notices and debt recovery fees shows precisely why both the code and the cap are needed. For too long, some companies have been allowed to prey mercilessly on drivers who might make an honest mistake and then have to face both over-zealous enforcement and threatening debt recovery letters. The Government must stand up to these companies and get the code over the line so we finally have fair and transparent enforcement in the private parking sector”.
His comments were very much supported by the fellow organisation, the AA.
While none of us has any sympathy with irresponsible, inconsiderate or dangerous parking, too often we are not talking about any of those. The latest case I heard was of someone who stopped at a local shopping centre—it was in Flitwick, which might indicate why they were there—which had a pub restaurant, for a lunchtime meal. The pub was very busy and took so long to serve them that they eventually cancelled their order and left the car park just five minutes after the allotted parking time. Incidentally, it was so badly signed that the complainant had not been able to find any sign indicating the parking restrictions. Just a few days later, they received a fine of £100 from the private parking company. It is no wonder people get infuriated.
Please can we get this code back in place as quickly as possible to ensure that private parking is fair and transparent to motorists?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for bringing forward this important debate and other noble Lords for their considered and insightful contributions. It is fair to say that there are a lot of stories out there. I am sorry to hear about those experiences and, after preparing for this over the last few days, I am sure that everyone has a story. It seems to be a widespread issue to which everyone can relate. I am sorry that such stories are not rare. I assure all noble Lords that the Government remain committed to implementing the private parking code of practice as soon as we can.
Parking is a crucial part of our transport infrastructure; we all have an interest in how car parks are managed, especially given the important link between transport accessibility and the vitality of our high streets and town centres. There are good private parking operators delivering this crucial service. As was referred to, most times people park it is hassle free and does not result in any grievances. However, from public correspondence, the interventions we have just heard, news media reports and various consumer and motoring group campaigns, we know that poor practices are persistent within the private parking industry. Rest assured, the Government are committed to reintroducing the code of practice to ensure fairness for drivers, vehicle keepers and landowners.
Examples of poor practice range from confusing instructions on signage, which many noble Lords referred to, to the use of intimidating and pseudo-legal language in the enforcement of parking charges to the opaque appeal processes that were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey—I suspect that the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and I would be able to help the noble Lord with the Welsh signage, but it is not fair that he did not understand the requirements of those parking restrictions.
There are reasons why the code was drafted and introduced. Data on parking charges are still not collated and centrally held, but I understand that the number of parking charges issued is getting larger and can have significant impacts on individuals and businesses. This lack of central data is being addressed. However, DVLA data on the number of requests made by private parking operators for registered vehicle keeper data provides a proxy for the volume of parking charges issued. As was mentioned by a few speakers, in 2019—which is the latest year for which I have data—private parking operators made over 8 million requests to the DVLA. That represents a significant increase from the 2012 figures, which were about 2 million. As was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, 2012 was when the Protection of Freedoms Act banned clamping and introduced keeper liability.
As others have mentioned, the significant increase in the number of parking charges issued is not in line with the increase in the number cars or indeed the demand for parking. We know that the increasing number of parking charges has negative impacts not only on motorists but on parking operators and landowners too. Non-compliance with parking restrictions can have adverse consequences for access to businesses, while motorists of course face financial penalties and, potentially, county court judgments.
That is why we developed the code following Royal Assent of the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019. The code of practice and the enforcement framework seek to meet three key objectives: to create consistency across the parking system and raise standards, to ensure fairness for drivers and registered vehicle keepers, and to increase transparency in the way the private parking industry operates. In doing so, the code seeks to tighten obligations on private parking managers to ensure—as just requested by the noble Lord, Lord Sahota—that signs at the entrance to and within the premises are designed and located so they are clearly visible and convey all the information drivers need to see.
The code seeks to standardise requirements for consideration and grace periods. It also tries to raise standards for complaints and appeal handling, including the introduction of a requirement to consider mitigating circumstances and an ability to cancel parking charges in certain prescribed circumstances. It also prohibits misleading or intimidating language in car park charges or debt recovery notices.
The two controversial measures are introducing new parking charge levels that are proportionate to the seriousness of the contravention, and introducing new debt recovery fee limits or potentially banning them altogether. As noble Lords know, the code was laid in Parliament in February 2022. However, shortly after its introduction, a number of private parking operators, and indeed debt recovery agencies, initiated a judicial review proceeding into the Government’s decision to introduce within the code new levels of private parking charges and to ban debt recovery fees. It was accepted that the original processes, unfortunately, were not adequate with respect to the impact assessment conducted prior to the introduction of the code. The Government therefore decided to concede those challenges and temporarily withdraw the code to ensure that its impacts were rigorously examined. Failing to do so would open us up to further challenges and could ultimately set us back further. I recognise that the setback is frustrating but, as we know, a further judicial review is possible and therefore we cannot cut corners. I hope noble Lords will recognise the need for this and we remain totally committed to delivering the code of practice.
While developing the new impact assessment, the Government have engaged with a range of relevant groups, including consumer representatives, parking trade associations and representatives from private parking operators and debt recovery agencies. To ensure the decisions are as well informed as they can be, we decided to publish the draft impact assessment to test the initial assumptions and run a formal call for evidence alongside it, to give all stakeholders an opportunity to provide relevant evidence.
My noble friend Lord Leigh referred to the parking charges element of this. We are of course considering the level of parking charges. My noble friend is right to highlight the importance of an effective deterrent. We are trying to find further evidence to demonstrate how effective or otherwise the deterrent would be with each option to inform the decisions on these matters.
This call for evidence, which closes on 8 October, is a key moment. I encourage those who have evidence that supports or contradicts our current understanding to come forward to help develop the options. I recognise that this creates another delay, but it is a necessary delay to demonstrate that an informed and evidenced decision is being taken on these elements of the code. The Government are taking a genuinely open approach to these decisions, and without knowing what the outcomes of our current call for evidence will be, unfortunately I cannot give the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, a specific date for when the code will come.
We know that, following the call for evidence, we will publish a new impact assessment, which will need to be subject to further public consultation, on the options for parking charges and debt recovery fees.
In conclusion, I hope that the recent publication of the draft impact assessment, albeit slightly later than expected, and the call for evidence demonstrate that not only are the Government committed to publishing the code but keen to make sure that the measures set out in this new code work and stand up to legal challenge. The draft impact assessment estimates that, should we do nothing to improve the sector, parking charges will continue to rise. The estimates we have seen are that, by 2033, private parking operators will issue over 12 million charges a year. The Government are therefore working to try to stop this from happening.
I will look into the specific case of Northallerton car park on behalf of the noble Baroness and will respond in writing when I have spoken to the department about the specifics. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for bringing forward this debate and all noble Lords for their contributions. The Government look forward to continuing discussions on this important topic and delivering the expected results.
Climate Change: Migration
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
To ask His Majesty’s Government what consultations they are having with European and other partners on how best to manage the likely migration as a result of climate change.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, during the passage of the Illegal Migration Bill, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury stressed in his contributions that we were dealing with an international problem that requires international solutions. If this is so with the present refugee crisis, which is caused mainly by war, oppressive regimes and dire poverty, how much more is this the case when, on top of this, we have a mass movement of people predicted by climate change?
In fact, that movement is already taking place. Although it is not always easy to separate out displacement as a result of political and economic factors from that due to climate change, it has been estimated that, even now, a huge number of people have had to move because of the latter. For example, in 2022, it was estimated that 32.8 million people fell into this category. In other words, movement of people due to climate factors already forms just under half of the 71.1 million total displaced people in the world. This breaks down to 19.2 million having to move because of floods and 10 million because of storms, with 2.2 million as a result of wildfires, landslides and extreme temperatures forming the remainder.
To take just one example, the climate crisis has already uprooted millions of people in the United States. In 2018, 1.2 million people were displaced by extreme conditions of fire, storms and flooding, and the annual toll had risen to 1.7 million people by 2020. The US now spends the amazing figure of $l billion on a disaster every 18 days. If this is the impact on a developed country, it is not difficult to imagine the effect of climate change on those with fewer resources and a less developed infrastructure.
If this is what is happening in the present, scenarios for the future suggest that movements of people could be on a truly massive scale. One cause, as we know, is rising sea levels. Take Bangladesh for example: by 2050, climate experts predict that rising sea levels will submerge some 17% of the nation’s land and displace about 20 million people.
The World Bank has produced a scenario-based analysis which estimated that
“as many as 216 million people could move within their own countries due to slow-onset climate change impacts by 2050”,
with 86 million predicted to be displaced in sub-Saharan Africa alone. The UN’s International Organization for Migration puts the figure even higher, predicting there could be as many as 1 billion environmental migrants in the next few years, while more recent projections point to 1.2 billion by 2050 and 1.4 billion by 2060. After 2050, that figure is expected to soar as the world heats up further and the global population rises to its predicted peak in the mid-2060s.
Floods, fires and drought bring great hardship and suffering and force people to move. Most will seek to move within their own country, but some who are particularly desperate and resourceful will do anything to get away to what is perceived as a better life in a country overseas. It has been estimated that, since 2014, 28,000 people have lost their lives at sea. This reminds us that, unless the problems are tackled locally, there is bound to be an increase in the number of desperate people who will do anything for the chance of a better life in a more developed country.
The good news is that this issue is being discussed in a number of international organisations, including the Global Forum on Migration and Development, the GFMD; the International Dialogue on Migration, the IDM; and the International Migration Review Forum, the IMRF. The GFMD is currently ongoing, under the chairmanship of France, and its findings are due to be reported at its summit in January next year. It would be good if the Minister could say something about how these findings might best be discussed in Parliament. The IDM is an organ of the International Organization on Migration—the IOM—which brings together all stakeholders. It is urging countries to adopt a more preventive approach rather than just a reactive one.
The main body for Governments, however, is the IMRF, which serves as the “primary intergovernmental global platform”. It has a global compact, which is a “non-legally binding, cooperative framework”, which, as it says,
“fosters international cooperation among all relevant actors on migration, acknowledging that no State can address migration alone, and upholds the sovereignty of States and their obligations under international law”.
The IMRF takes place every four years. The summary report of its last meetings noted that speakers had highlighted the “importance of shared responsibility” in finding solutions to challenges, while noting that the pandemic had
“revealed gaps in migration governance”.
Looking to the future, it is probable that most migration will remain local or regional. It is vital that, in order for regions and countries to cope, the international community should assist in the initial phase of relocation by providing the necessary requirements for a smooth transition. This means stronger resources for the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, for example, in acute situations, and measures to integrate migrants with the local population. It is likely that, rather than an acute crisis, there will be slower and more orderly movements. In relation to this, it is good to note the UK climate change fund to help countries adapt to climate change. Perhaps the Minister might be able say something about this and how the fund will work—or is working already—to achieve this.
Another concern, which is not unrelated to this, has been raised by a number of concerned bodies. It is that, at the moment, there is no definition of “climate migrant”. Perhaps the Minister might be able to take that back to his department to ask whether consideration of that might be possible, because that would make it possible to have a much stronger legal framework for this whole issue.
I began by quoting the words of the most reverend Primate: that when it comes to migration, we are dealing with an international problem that has to be tackled internationally. It is therefore good to note that the issue is under discussion in at least three organisations under the auspices of the UN.
The danger is that these will just be talking shops, and—however useful they may be—in the end decisions have to be made and money has to be raised and spent. Is the Minister confident that we do in fact have the right mechanism in place for making decisions about how those countries most affected can be best helped and that resources for them can be made available? I mentioned earlier that the IMRF has commented on “gaps in migration governance”. In other words, are we confident that when decisions have to be made, there is a body capable of making them and making sure that the appropriate funds are available? Perhaps the Minister can reassure us on this issue. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, for securing this debate, for his excellent and comprehensive introduction and particularly for setting out so clearly some of the work undertaken by international bodies. I will not repeat any of that, because he spelt that out very clearly for us. As he noted, the climate crisis is at the heart of famines, conflicts and food insecurity across the globe today. We have already seen the disastrous effects of climate change in many parts of the developing world.
I want to focus on a few thoughts, particularly on the Horn of Africa, where we see this perhaps most clearly at the moment. Indeed, a terrible natural humanitarian disaster is unfolding before our very eyes, with thousands now fleeing the region in search of food security and water. It is vital to develop an effective strategy to mitigate the impacts of climate change in the developing world. The Horn of Africa is currently facing a climate-induced drought and a serious food crisis affecting more than 36 million people, more than half of whom are children. UNICEF estimates that up to 5.7 million children need urgent treatment for acute malnutrition.
I have spoken repeatedly in your Lordships’ House of the need for a decisive emergency response to this crisis. As a country, our current pledge is £143 million to that region. Yet back in 2017 we were investing £861 million a year, as we were responding both to the immediate crisis and to long-term development. While I continue to urge His Majesty’s Government to scale up their short-term response, this debate is more centred on our long-term climate strategies. As well as the immediate need for emergency aid, it is vital that wherever possible we think creatively about the money we are investing to increase trade. We need these economies to get a much higher level of resilience so that, wherever possible, they are able to deal with the problems of internal displacement themselves.
Therefore, the focus of what we are doing, which in the long run will benefit the wider world—and indeed may benefit us indirectly—needs to be on how we are attending not only to those great trade deals with some of the wealthier countries in the world but to parts of Africa. Let us be quite clear: many other major players—some with what one might say are more dubious motives—are now investing hugely in parts of Africa. We need to see this as an absolute priority, both for the sake of the people there and as we seek to build long-term peace across the world. Africa has now become the scene and centre of the most extraordinary battle for hearts and minds. So this is really in our own interests, as well as helping those in desperate need.
The approach from the UN and the various NGOs has shifted focus towards promoting climate adaptation and the creation of economies and societies that are more resilient to climate impacts. Such adaptation includes building more resilient infrastructure, large-scale planting of trees, trying to stop erosion and problems with the environment, helping and training farmers, and providing resources to switch to more drought-resilient crops. This is all key.
Getting it right early on will not only save lives and cut costs but lessen the impact of climate migration down the line. Therefore, although we know that some international organisations are now looking at long-term strategies for climate adaptation, can the Minister tell us His Majesty’s Government’s plans for us to adopt a similar long-term strategy based and rooted here in the UK? The only sensible course of action for us, based on present trends, is to anticipate a significant rise in climate-related migration. It is, in the modern world, a relatively new phenomenon—hundreds of years ago it was quite common—but it poses some associated challenges and questions that we must address urgently.
I want to mention one further area, which is the importance of family. Earlier this year the Justice and Home Affairs Committee released a report, All Families Matter: An Inquiry Into Family Migration. It opened with Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
“The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State”.
It is terrible to think that in some cases Governments are breaking up families because of some of the laws on migration. Families are the foundation of a good society and a building block of community. Here in this country we need to invest, as always, in how we support family life, which is the basic place where values are nurtured and where people are brought up and provided for.
The report speaks of how bespoke routes created to address emerging crises are often inconsistent on which family members are allowed and helped in migration and on what terms that takes place. With climate migrants potentially being one of the greatest challenges that we are going to face, it is important that we try to get this right and ensure a fair and consistent approach to family migration rules. We have witnessed the catastrophic effects that climate change can have on the developing world, and we can expect it only to get worse, so our immediate focus needs to be on providing climate-vulnerable countries with the tools necessary for adaptation and resilience. This will, as the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, said, require international co-operation. Surely, with our honourable tradition of seeking to be a leader in our world when such crises emerge, this is now the time for us to step up and take a leading role. I hope the Minister will be able to set out His Majesty’s Government’s approach to this important area as we seek to work on the role that we can play in trying to solve or ameliorate the worst effects of the crisis emerging in front of us now.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and very much agree with his expressions of concern about our current family migration policies. I am sure the Government would like to claim to be the party of the family, yet we have migration policies that regularly separate refugees and other families on a huge scale. That is something that one hopes to see change in future. I thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, for securing this important debate. It is a pity that it comes at the end of a week when the House is exhausted by a deluge of government legislation, but it means that those of us who are here perhaps have a chance to take a broader view than is commonly possible.
I am going to start with a longue-durée perspective, inspired in part by recently listening to the University of Georgia academic Kalyani Ramnath, author of Boats in a Storm: Law, Migration, and Decolonization in South and Southeast Asia, 1942-1962. It recounts how people from what are now India, Burma, Sri Lanka and Malaysia, who had traditionally moved freely around the Indian Ocean, were suddenly trapped—families divided, trade routes disrupted—by the imposition of the idea, imported from Europe, of the rigid Westphalian system of states. All of this is within living memory; a change from freedom to restriction and great suffering inflicted by borders.
It is a useful reminder that freedom of movement has been the normal condition for nearly all of human history. Our current rigidity is, on a global scale, an extremely recent development. We can all enjoy reading the travel narratives of Ibn Battuta or Marco Polo. Neither of them talks about significant border issues—or immigration issues at all. We have to ask the question about this rigidity: is it going to be fit for this age of shocks, of the climate emergency—the desperate urgency of which has been driven home to us again and again this year as the El Niño weather system has magnified the boiling of our world? Clearly, the rigidity is now a huge problem. The people of the Libyan city of Derna, formerly with a population of around 100,000, have so tragically suffered this week. Perhaps 20,000 people have been swept to their deaths, one description speaking of a seven-meter high wall of water surging along a valley in the city, gouging out whole neighbourhoods.
That is a powerful, tragic and little-covered reminder of a truth driven home to me a few years ago by a Women’s Environmental Network event on climate migration, which stressed that, while much of the debate around climate migration is “How do we stop it?”, the reality is that, for many, the inability to migrate is literally a death sentence. Being trapped in place that is literally unsurvivable is as much of a problem as being forced to move. Potentially, of course, it is a greater problem. That is not to say, of course, that the world must not do everything it can to mitigate emissions to reduce the scale of the coming disaster, but, as so many have experienced this year, there is already a great deal of disaster built in.
The Green Party position is absolutely clear. We want to create a world in which no one is forced to move by the climate emergency, or by other human-inflicted disasters, including war and conflict. We have the political vision to see that this is possible. But we also want a world in which people are free to move when they want. As a migrant who has lived on three continents, I had the privilege of my place of birth—a place stolen from its original inhabitants in hideous acts of genocide by incoming migrants who were my predecessors—which made it easy for me. We must work towards a world where everyone who wants it has the same freedom that I have been lucky enough to enjoy.
In the meantime, we have huge numbers of people trapped and dying at borders that are increasingly fortified to keep them out, from the charnel house of the Med to the desperate badlands of Mexico adjoining the US border, and across the border in states such as Arizona. UN figures from the first half of this year show that 11 children die every week attempting to cross the Mediterranean. Those figures came out just a month after an estimated 100 children died when a fishing boat sank off southern Greece. We should be putting significant pressure on the European Union to acknowledge the horrors that “Fortress Europe”—its policy—has created and to see a situation that provides an orderly, safe route for people to seek sanctuary. I am very proud that the European Green Party has been an absolute leader in fighting back against Fortress Europe and in promoting orderly, safe, just policies.
It is worth focusing a little on how the climate emergency interacts with, magnifies and even causes conflict. I will take the case study of Somalia, where there have been six failed rainy seasons in a row, which has led to three years of insufficient water and food insecurity. Since the middle of 2021, one-third of all the livestock in Somalia has died. Some 20% of its people are displaced, many of them heading to refugee camps in Kenya and Ethiopia. Each week, 2,000 people from Somalia arrive at the Dadaab refugee camp alone. Some people in the UK like to talk about our alleged small boat crisis, which, in the first half of this year, saw 11,500 people arriving across the channel because no safe, orderly routes were available to them. That amounts to six weeks of arrivals at one refugee camp in Kenya.
The fact is that most refugees are either internally displaced in their own country or are in neighbouring countries that are massively wracked by poverty and inequality, and a global system that still sucks resources out of the global south and into the global north. I note that, this morning, your Lordships’ House discussed the Foreign Secretary’s speech in Africa, which, I was pleased to note, included a reference to the need to reform the international financial sector. Of course, looking at the issues of debt, this is still pumping huge amounts of money out of the global south and into the City of London, down the road. That is leaving people with no choice but to become refugees. Of course, in this context, I cannot avoid mentioning the cuts to overseas development assistance and the diversion of funds to be spent here in the UK, instead of for their proper purpose.
The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, gave us many of the figures and much of the scale of this, but it is worth focusing on the fact that some people, particularly on the Benches opposite, like to attack the idea of net zero by 2050. Of course, what we should be looking at for the UK is net zero by 2030, or by the early 2030s at the absolute latest. If climate mitigation measures are not taken, there will be a world of climate refugees. Middle-level estimates are that 216 million people could be forced to move within their own countries by 2050, but there could be an 80% reduction in that if the world—that is, primarily the global north—does what it needs to do now on climate. These estimates range from 25 million to 1.5 billion people being climate refugees. I would ask every person who questions climate action in the UK to consider what the impact of failing to act adequately on the climate, as we are now failing to act, will mean for that figure of climate refugees.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, it is a delight to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I am grateful to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, for bringing this debate and raising this important issue. It touches on two of the primary challenges that we face in the 21st century; as we have heard, they are deeply connected. We heard astounding statistics, such as that, by 2050, perhaps 200 million people will be displaced due to climate change.
I was reminded of many of the weather events of this summer in Europe. We saw about 19,000 people evacuated from Rhodes due to wildfires; there were images of holidaymakers fleeing but being given refuge and hospitality by local people. We saw temperature red alerts and the hottest June on record globally. This is the climate crisis close up and, at the most basic level, it involved the movement of people and the support of other people—a small snapshot of a much larger global issue.
Just recently, at a refugee and asylum seekers service in Gloucestershire, we had a conversation about the fact that some regions of the planet are becoming uninhabitable and simply will not be able to adapt to extreme temperatures. A recent report published by Christian Aid pointed to research that supports what we have already heard: higher temperatures will lead to greater projected asylum applications to European countries.
However, as we have also heard, we need to keep this in perspective, set against the backdrop of millions of people displaced within their own countries and across neighbouring borders. I, too, was going to talk about Somalia but we have heard about that already. What is really important is that so many people across our world are being displaced for reasons other than climate change, such as war or persecution, and then discovering that the effects of climate change are adding to their suffering. Another example concerns the Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh, who are being further impacted by adverse weather disasters due to climate change.
None of this can be separated from the issues of poverty that underlie all we are talking about. The option of air conditioning simply does not exist in many places where people live across our world and the world’s poorest are bearing the burden of the climate crisis, which is not of their making. We also know that, for a whole host of reasons, the impact of climate change is predicted to affect women and girls disproportionately; we have already heard about children. It is not surprising that people are on the move. It is simply not an option for us to pull up the drawbridge and leave others to deal with the consequences of global migration. Working with our European partners is a practical necessity to deal with a crisis that is global in scale. As we have already heard, we have a collective responsibility to work with our European partners; many of those bodies have already been named. We cannot expect other countries to pick up the tab when we hold so many of the resources.
There are practical questions that we must address. The issue of the definition of a refugee has already been mentioned. The refugee convention described a refugee as
“someone unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted”.
That reflected the realities of 1951, not 2023. We would be wise to explore a more extensive definition that takes into account the drivers of migration that have developed over the past 70 years and, in particular, reflects the way in which climate change affects migration patterns. One way of addressing this is to invest further in climate adaptation, as well as in loss and damage payments, to help people respond to the impact of climate change in the countries where they live. It would be good if the Minister could say what is being done to address this.
One day last year, at the Lambeth conference, bishops from across the world gathered in the grounds of Lambeth Palace on one of the hottest days of the year. The grass was like straw. We sat in the shade of marquees and heard stories about the effects of climate change on real lives in real places. Some of it was very hard to hear. We had food that day—extremely good food—and plenty of water as we talked and listened to one another but many of the stories I heard were about climate change devastating food production, the failure of crops and people no longer being able to survive in the places of their communities. We also heard stories of hope. For example, I heard of churches in Uganda providing seedlings for tree planting and of the church in Kenya teaching and encouraging dryland farming, but all of it requires investment so that people can stay and build strong communities where they are.
This is an issue of justice. For me, as a Christian, that really matters, so I am grateful for this debate, which has highlighted the need for us not simply to keep looking for instant solutions to a problem that is about us here in the UK endeavouring to manage the inflow of people. This is about the need to work closely with European and other partners to engage in a courageous global vision and seek long-term and often slow but persistent ways to address the push factors, as well as just ways of managing the flows of increased movement across Europe.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is always interesting for me when I speak on behalf of my Benches and yet agree with every single world that has been said by all previous speakers in the debate. I congratulate the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, on bringing this debate to us. In many respects, this is the issue of our time, in this generation, and it is incumbent on us, as leaders of this generation in the world, to ensure that we correct—or at least ameliorate—some of the issues and start to have some solutions so that we do not pass this issue on to another generation who will be even less equipped than us to address it.
I left the debate on the Abraham Accords in Grand Committee, in which I spoke, early in order to be in the Chamber for this debate. In Grand Committee, we referenced the natural disasters in Morocco and Libya. Although it was a debate on the geopolitical relationships between countries on the one hand, noble Lords were also seeking to address the impact of climate and people movement in the Gulf, Middle East and north Africa, as we are in this debate. They are connected, as are so many areas. It is interesting that the Home Office Minister is responding to this debate; the Home Office is, in many respects, a recipient department that probably sees itself as having to try to address this issue, whereas the Foreign Office and the Treasury are departments in government that we need to hold to account because they have more tools available to them to address the root causes. I will return to that issue in a moment.
I regret to say that we are a long way from having a fully integrated government approach on the climate emergency and its consequences when it comes to the movement of people. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans was right: the debate in the Chamber on the Horn of Africa meant that we could have a debate on the impact on the individual human, rather than simply all the statistics and figures. However, the statistics and figures, with which the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, started, are stark. The Groundswell report by the World Bank, from which I believe he sourced his statistics, indicated that the 260 million people who are likely to migrate as a result of climate change are doing so within their own countries.
The backcloth of the debate is not only natural disasters and the climate emergency. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, myself and others, including the Minister, are veterans of the Illegal Migration Bill. I regret to say that we saw then how the Government were quite willing to weaponise the fear around the statistics on the number of people being forcibly displaced. The Home Secretary said that 105 million people are on the move and are coming here—of course they were not. Migration being used as a tool to create fear for political purposes is not unique to our Government; this is, regrettably, becoming a trend in other countries that are among the richest in the world.
When we look at the World Bank statistics, they require global consideration. In east Asia and the Pacific, the World Bank estimates that 49 million people will be displaced in their own countries owing to climate change. In south Asia, it is 40 million. The noble and right reverend Lord indicated that the figure is 86 million in sub-Saharan Africa and 17 million in Latin America. These are enormous figures. We have seen, in certain areas, ways to try to address the issue.
The World Bank indicated that it could be addressed if we act now to cut global greenhouse gases, to integrate climate migration into green, resilient and inclusive development planning, to plan for each phase of the migration, with proper strategic planning of countries working together, and to invest in understanding the drivers. The World Bank indicated that the numbers that I cited could be reduced by up to 80% if we act—so all is not lost. Therefore, the focus must be on how Governments such as the UK’s can be leaders in that action.
Unfortunately, in many respects, we are being embarrassed by other countries that are most affected and are taking the lead themselves. Over the summer, and at the moment—this was referenced in Questions earlier in the Chamber—African countries have signed a continental agreement to address climate mobility, led by Kenya and Uganda, at the Africa climate summit in Nairobi. John Kerry was there, representing the US President, and the IOM and the other networks were putting together a strategy. I would be grateful if the Minister could indicate who represented the UK at the Africa climate summit in Nairobi. I hope that there was ministerial representation, but, if that was not that case, I hope the Minister will be able to indicate who represented us.
The Government have also, regrettably, stepped back from a leadership role. That is not just my position—the Minister might not be surprised to hear me say that. That was from a former Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, who resigned because he felt that the Government were resiling from a leadership role. I will quote from his resignation letter. He said:
“More worrying, the UK has visibly stepped off the world stage and withdrawn our leadership on climate and nature. Too often we are simply absent from key international fora”.
He went on:
“The problem is not that the government is hostile to the environment, it is that you, our prime minister, are simply uninterested. That signal, or lack of it, has trickled down through Whitehall and caused a kind of paralysis”.
Now ministerial leadership can change, and we can see, hopefully, some differences in approach. But that seems unlikely. What is harder to reverse are the devastating reductions referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, with regards to official development assistance. The very tools which the UK worked with our partners not only to design and fund but to make sure would be effective—thought leadership, financial support at scale, and implementation—have been cut dramatically.
It was the hottest month on record in July this year in this country. At that time, the Government released figures showing that they had cut at least £85 million from the funding of international climate programmes. The UK has reported to the OECD that in 2019-20, we supported the Rio commitment by £1.8 billion. The latest report to the OECD is that has been drastically cut to £449 million. This is not just a case of citing other statistics. These are programmes which have been either reduced massively or cut altogether, and the UK was the global leader in support for them.
The International Development Minister, Andrew Mitchell, reported to Parliament’s International Development Committee and revealed how much the reduced funding was affecting climate programmes. For example, the international forest unit will lose £38 million after being cut by 51%. The adaptation, nature and resilience department is being halved by 51%, losing £23 million—despite Ministers saying that the UK needs to do more to help lower-income countries adapt to the effects of climate change. Adaptation was mentioned by the right reverend Prelate. We have pulled back in so many areas from supporting those countries that can least support themselves for adaptation.
The UK partnership for accelerating climate transition is being cut by 49%. Known as PACT, the programme works to accelerate partner countries’ transition to low-carbon development and help aid eligible countries meet their climate targets. These are not academic reductions; these are reductions that will make an impact on our ability to address the very crisis that is causing the migration. So I hope that the Minister will be able to say that the Home Office is leading—with other departments in Government—a change of direction. I suspect that we may not hear that, but we cannot wait. This is an emergency. The UK cannot simply be having our political discussions debated upon us receiving; we need to be part of solving the problems. We need a change of policy and that is urgent.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, for his excellent and comprehensive introduction to the debate. The problems that have been outlined are of such an overwhelming scale that it is difficult to comprehend effective action. We have heard what action has been taken by the British Government, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, spoke specifically and eloquently about cuts in government budgets. Nevertheless, the overwhelming scale of the problems we have heard about is very difficult to comprehend.
It is my understanding, having read the Library’s report and other reports, that a clear and direct link has not been established between climate change and migration, yet the UNHCR estimates the number of people who are forcibly displaced by severe weather-related hazards each year. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, cited the figure of 32 million people displaced last year, which is a UNHCR figure. There is a consensus among international climate authorities that climate change is increasing the frequency and intensity of such weather events. However, there is not a consensus on what the future flows of migration due to climate change will look like—although various figures on that were cited in today’s debate. The World Bank figure cited by a number of noble Lords was that as many as 200 million people could move within their own countries due to slow onset climate change by 2050.
Many international conferences and meetings have focused on migration and climate, all of which have emphasised the need for international co-operation that recognises obligations under international law—that is the only way to address these massive problems. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and others have said that this is perhaps the greatest and most challenging issue of our time. There is a real passion among many people to try to address the problems.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester mentioned air conditioning, which reminded me of an experience I had some 30 years ago at an oil and gas development conference where we were addressed by the Turkish Oil Minister. He said that that was the first year that Turkish people were spending more money on air conditioning than on heating their homes. It was a turning point in Turkey, but I suspect that many other countries have had that flipping in the use of their energy and an overall massive increase in their energy over the last few decades. Who are we to say that they should not turn on the air conditioning units? Nevertheless, we need to find better ways of people being able to live in the climate as it changes.
The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, mentioned wildfires in the States. I have just returned from Seattle and Portland in the northern States, and I was also in Canada. In Seattle and Portland, I could smell the smoke from Canada, and they gave routine predictions on the smoke every day. There were also a number of evacuations in Canada while I was there.
Canada is a very wealthy country, and this was handled. Thousands of people were evacuated from their homes, but it was almost routine—these things are happening every year. While there is nothing new in wildfires, the scale and consistency of them is a cause for concern. Nevertheless, I make the point that in a mature, wealthy country such as Canada, they were able to handle these wildfire situations and were of course trying to mitigate against them as far as possible. I was there nearly a month, and while I was there, there were no reports of any deaths as a result of the wildfires in Canada.
To return to the politics a bit more, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, we have debated migration issues in this Chamber at length, and a number of speeches on previous legislation have talked about the impact of climate change on migration, and we have heard about the Government’s cuts in this respect. I really want to hear from the Minister today something about the Government’s aspiration for taking a leading role in the world, for people to look to Britain to try to address the profound issues which we are facing. We on this side always say we can do this only with a proper international, ongoing source of co-operation. Just pulling up the drawbridge is not going to be the solution to these problems. Can the Minister give us some hope that the current Government aspire to international co-operation to try to deal with these profound issues?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions and add my congratulations to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, on securing this important debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, this debate is reminiscent of certain debates that we had during the passage of the Illegal Migration Act—in particular that of the most reverend Primate’s amendments in respect of a 10-year plan on migration. As a result of that experience, we all know that these issues are particularly live and pertinent to many Members across the House, including the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries.
The topics that are discussed are hugely complex, and it seems difficult to do justice to them in the short time that the House has had to do so, but I will endeavour to answer the questions raised. Let me say in opening that this question as posed by the noble and right reverend Lord will find answers only in co-operation—he is absolutely right to say that. That is co-operation between countries, between government departments, and between business and civil society.
The right reverend prelate the Bishop of Saint Albans, who spoke on the impact of climate change on the world’s poorest, made an important point. We need to consider our policies and action related to climate change and migration strategically and in the round—with regard to our trade policy, development policy and wider international engagement. The tone of our debate on this subject, like our response as a country, must be tempered and careful.
Throughout the evidence that we have on the links between climate change and migration, there remain many variables and possibilities. Obviously, we are increasing our understanding of this area. We do not and must not make policy in this country according to mob rule. Selfish protestors who disrupt people as they go about their lives do nothing to address the cause of climate change. The reality is that climate change is already influencing where people live and how they move. Where this is the case, the effects of climate change are generally just one factor in a wider range of immediate considerations.
In the Question before the House today, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, makes the distinction between the EU and other partners. I understand why he has set out the Question in that way. His interest is in the proximity of and dialogue with near neighbours. There is value in this view. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester rightly noted the importance of working with our European and wider partners. However, I respectfully urge that we approach this with a wider lens. This is not to denigrate in any way the importance of our European relationships. We must also place the upstream source at the forefront of how we think about this issue. This grasp of the global situation is representative of how we, as a Government, are approaching the dialogue on this subject.
With this in mind, I can inform the House that the United Kingdom is involved with a range of international conversations and discussions around climate change, as identified by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, in his speech. They include three international bodies: the Global Compact for Migration and its associated events, namely the International Migration Review Forum and regional reviews; the Global Forum for Migration and Development; and the International Dialogue on Migration. A further joint workshop between the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the Inter-Governmental Consultations on Migration, Asylum and Refugees was also held earlier this year in June.
At the International Migration Review Forum in May 2022, the United Kingdom Government attended side events on the climate migration nexus. They supplied a speaker at a Guatemala-organised side event on this topic. The international community clearly needs to work together to make sure that any resultant migratory movements are done in a safe, orderly and regular fashion. They must work to benefit both the countries of origin and of destination, as well as those people affected and on the move.
To help develop our understanding of the challenges and potential solutions arising from this issue, the United Kingdom has funded research on the relationship between climate change and human mobility. We are using this and the growing body of evidence from around the world to support the development of a comprehensive policy position on climate migration. Evidence shows that climate extremes and environmental degradation are often amplifiers of other principal migration drivers—economic, social and political. We should recognise the complexity of the causes of migration and the links between them, as well as seek to provide people with options for sustainable livelihoods.
I turn to the specifics. A rapid evidence assessment published by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office in 2021 made a number of important findings. First, climate-related shocks can contribute to increases and decreases in migration but there is no upward trend in weather shock-related migration. Secondly, there is little evidence of existing impacts of long-term climatic and related changes on migration. Thirdly, there is strong evidence that adaptations to climate-related shocks and hazards can reduce migration pressures but maladaptation contributes to displacement and migration. Fourthly, there is strong evidence that perceptions and narratives of climate change, weather shocks and local environments affect migration practices and decisions. Fifthly, poverty-affected individuals and households are particularly affected by both migration pressures and barriers to movement, while young people are the most likely to move in response to climatic pressures. Finally, there are no rigorous global estimates of the number of people who have been displaced or are migrating in response to weather shocks or climate change; high-end projections of future climate-related migration are not considered credible.
I turn to a number of other points raised by noble Lords. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans noted how some of the most acute impacts of climate change are falling on people in Africa. Mindful of this, only this month in Nairobi at the Africa Climate Summit, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, the Minister for Development and Africa announced £49 million for new finance and resilience projects and reaffirmed £11.6 billion of funding for an international climate finance pledge. This reflects the degree of seriousness that this Government place on the issue and underlines the UK’s commitment, with the international community, to the issue in Africa. More widely, the UK is the third-largest donor of the UN Migration Multi-Partner Trust Fund, with over £4.2 million pledged. I hope that this answers the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in relation to the Government’s presence at the summit.
As to the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, about the concept of climate refugees, the 1951 convention, which the right reverend Prelate mentioned, does not recognise climate change and it therefore cannot be used as a justification for grant of refugee status. The UNHCR and the International Organization for Migration caution against the use of language around climate refugees. Our priority must be to focus our wider efforts on migration and climate change rather than this.
I conclude by reiterating the need for a temperate tone and for co-operation. This issue affects us all. Harmonious working is therefore vital. I reassure the House that His Majesty’s Government will continue to work with all their internal component parts—as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked—and with all our international partners in Europe and beyond to ensure that our response to climate-driven migration is evidenced and effective and, as I was rightly exhorted from the Bishops’ Benches, to ensure that it is fair both to the individuals displaced and of course to the British public.
Procurement Bill [HL]
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text