House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Laura Farris)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Since 2010, this Government have transformed the legislative landscape on tackling violence against women. We have created new criminal offences of stalking, non-fatal strangulation and coercive control, recognising that the most pernicious abuse is not always physical. We have implemented comprehensive modern slavery and domestic abuse laws, and outlawed insidious harms, such as revenge porn and the so-called “rough sex” defence to murder. We are prosecuting more rape cases today than in 2010, with sentences that are about 50% longer. But we are going further still, in our Sentencing Bill, our Criminal Justice Bill and our Victims and Prisoners Bill.
Owen Thompson
I welcome the Minister to her place. We need to be doing much more to tackle the culture of toxic masculinity that, sadly, still exists. We recently had a situation in Midlothian where one of our councillors faced sexual harassment at a public event. When they complained and raised the issue, the perpetrator’s colleagues simply said, “But he’s a good guy.”. We need to do much more to tackle that sort of attitude. Despite the complaint being made and the complainant being believed, no action was ever taken. What more can this Government do to ensure that in these situations action is taken so that we protect women and girls from such unfortunate situations?
Laura Farris
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I know that he does a lot of work on perpetrator programmes through the White Ribbon scheme in Scotland. I am sorry to hear about the experience of one of his local councillors, and I draw to his attention the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023, which recently received Royal Assent. It creates an offence of intentional harassment carried out because of a person’s sex. It is quite possible that that covers his friend’s case, so I would be grateful if he wrote to me or came to see me to discuss it further.
Joanna Cherry
Last month, Sex Matters presented the Prime Minister with a letter signed by almost 15,000 people asking him to
“take urgent action to halt an escalating campaign of violence and intimidation against women in the name of ‘trans rights’.”
It details how women and, in particular, lesbians are being threatened with the loss of their livelihoods and with physical violence, shouted down and intimidated at public events, and sometimes even assaulted for insisting on their rights to freedom of belief and of expression, and for calling for sex-based protections to be upheld. Will the Minister condemn that violence and intimidation? Will she urge the Prime Minister to do so as well and to commit to addressing it by commissioning a rapid review of the impact of extreme trans rights activism on women’s rights, including the rights of lesbians? Will she also open a call for evidence?
Laura Farris
I thank the hon. and learned Lady for her question, and I certainly condemn the conduct that she has described. Even though holding a gender critical belief is protected in law, both under section 10 of the Equality Act 2010 and, more widely, under article 9 of the European convention on human rights, I am aware of the polarisation and, sometimes, intimidation that surrounds this debate. I have seen the letter that Sex Matters wrote to the Prime Minister, and the hon. and learned Lady should be in no doubt about how seriously this is viewed. I have made reference to the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023, which creates an offence of intentional harassment where there is any causal connection, even a weak one, to a person’s sex, under which such conduct may fall. She has asked for a rapid review, and I would like to meet her to discuss that further and any next steps.
Kirsten Oswald
A recent large-scale study by the Open University on societal attitudes and experiences of online violence against women and girls found that seven in 10 believe that the current legislation is not effective in tackling such violence. Almost three quarters of women in Scotland, and more than half of men there, want online violence to be made a crime—that is a higher level than was found among those surveyed in England. Platforms have a duty of care to their users, so what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that new guidance in the Online Safety Act 2023 is effectively enforced and encourages women and girls to come forward with cases of online abuse?
Laura Farris
The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. There is no doubt that some of the toxic content, including violent pornography, has a serious impact on the way that women and girls are treated and the attitudes that certain men have towards them. As she will know, the Online Safety Act 2023 only received Royal Assent a month ago, and there is an extended implementation period. She will also know, I hope, that one of the later amendments to the Bill accepted by the Government placed a statutory obligation on Ofcom to publish guidance which summarises the measures that all online services need to take to reduce the risk of violence to women and girls. That is not on its own, but in consultation with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, the Victims Commissioner and other experts. The Act also places an obligation on social media and pornography providers to prevent children from being exposed to harmful content through new and robust age verification exercises—
Marion Fellows
I welcome the Minister to her place. Her former colleague, the Home Secretary, thought homelessness was a lifestyle choice, yet in reality, almost a quarter of homelessness among women and children is due to a violent or abusive relationship. The Scottish Government are piloting £1,000 grants to assist women who have left violent relationships, to help pay for essentials including rent and clothing. Has she considered that approach, instead of taking tents off the homeless?
Laura Farris
We placed the safety of domestic abuse victims at the heart of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. Local authorities have been given £25 million to ensure that all domestic abuse victims receive priority for housing. In addition, the Act places a legal duty on tier 1 local authorities to provide a wide range of support, including refuges. To date, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has allocated £377 million for local authorities to comply with the duty to provide housing.
Andrew Western
It is vital that victims of serious sexual assault are supported through what can often be a lengthy and traumatic process, yet we know that many rape victims do not access early mental health support because their therapy notes can be requested as part of the criminal investigation. That happens far too often and treats the wrong person with suspicion. Does the Minister agree that a specialist legal advocate for victims could allow them to challenge invasive requests for private information and access the support they need at the time they need it most?
Laura Farris
This is an issue that the Law Commission is looking into, and it already appears in our Victims and Prisoners Bill, so that such requests will never be more than necessary and proportionate. On the subject of whether there should be a dedicated legal adviser, I respectfully draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the fact that since 2010, there are now 950 dedicated independent sexual violence advisers, who can support victims of rape and serious sexual abuse every step of the way. We have quadrupled victims funding to ensure that we continue to grow that cohort.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I warmly welcome my hon. Friend to her place on the Treasury Bench; it is much deserved, and she was a distinguished member of the Justice Committee. She will know from that time that much work has already been done, following on from Operation Soteria, to improve investigation, conviction and prosecution rates and the victim experience in relation to rape and serious sexual offences. Will she also bear in mind that there are further opportunities, which we highlighted as a Committee in our scrutiny of the victims element of the Victims and Prisoners Bill, to improve the victim experience and ensure that it is consistent across the whole country?
Laura Farris
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and applaud all the work he does as Chair of the Justice Committee. It is undoubtedly true that the Victims and Prisoners Bill plays an important role in putting the victims code on to a statutory footing and giving victims enhanced rights, including a right of review and a right to make an impact statement, which we have supported. I also draw his attention to not just Operation Soteria but the fact that we are training 2,000 specialist police officers in rape and serious sexual offences, as well as the national roll-out of section 28 evidence procedures, which enable victims of these hideous crimes to give evidence early, privately and behind closed doors, to completely change their experience of the criminal justice system and keep them engaged in the process.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
I welcome the Minister to her well-deserved appointment. She will be aware of the case of David Fuller, who, as well as murdering two women, abused the corpses of over 100 women and girls in the mortuaries of the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust. For these crimes, he will rightly die in prison. However, the current legislation is shockingly inadequate on the abuse of dead bodies. It covers only penetrative sexual assault and not other acts of sexual assault on dead bodies. Will the Minister meet me, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) and other colleagues to discuss how we can rectify that in the Criminal Justice Bill, which comes before the House next week?
Laura Farris
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. The David Fuller case is appalling, and I send my deepest sympathies to the families of his victims. It is unbelievably dispiriting that we are even having to talk about these acts, and of extending the definition of abuse to meet the width and depravity of his crimes.
As my right hon. Friend will know, the offence he is referring to is dealt with in section 70 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. As a result of the David Fuller case, the Ministry of Justice is now reviewing both the maximum penalty and the scope of the law to ensure that what my right hon. Friend describes is adequately captured. Of course, I will have a meeting with both him and my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) in due course.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I join others in welcoming the Minister to her place. A victims Bill has been promised by the Conservatives since 2016, but while the UK Government have dithered, the Scottish Government have introduced the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, which seeks to put victims and witnesses at the heart of the justice system. It ensures that a range of trauma-informed support is available to child victims of violent and sexual abuse crimes, allowing them to give pre-recorded evidence without needing to go to a police station or a court. Have the Minister and the Government considered adopting that approach?
Laura Farris
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. As he will know, our Victims and Prisoners Bill is making its way through Parliament as we speak. He has talked about victim-focused support; I draw his attention to things like Operation Soteria, which is directed at rape victims and has now been rolled out on a national basis. That places victims’ rights at the heart of the inquiry and focuses all the effort on the suspects and their behaviour, so to be honest, what he has described is consistent with our current models of policing and investigating crime. I hope the Victims and Prisoners Bill will conclude its passage through Parliament and receive Royal Assent soon.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
The UK is one of the major funders of the International Criminal Court, and provides further practical support including sentence enforcement, pro bono expertise in victim and witness protection, and secondments. In June, I met with the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Karim Khan KC, and I will remain in contact with the ICC to discuss what resources it needs to operate effectively.
Neale Hanvey
It should go without saying that the International Criminal Court needs to be able to do its work unimpeded if it is to establish when collateral damage transcends into deliberate slaughter, or whether self-defence was in fact collective punishment. Will the Government provide a guarantee from the Dispatch Box that they will not intervene—as they did alongside the United States in 2021—against any future ICC investigation into war crimes perpetrated against the people of Gaza?
Alex Chalk
The hon. Gentleman’s original question was about the resource that we provide to the ICC. We are the second largest donor after Germany, and we have provided some additional support this year. Questions about prosecution are matters for independent prosecutors. It is not for Ministers in this Parliament to make that sort of decision: that will be a matter for independent prosecutors, whom I would expect to exercise their discretion freely and fairly.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
Legal aid is available for asylum cases, for victims of domestic abuse and modern slavery, for separated migrant children, and for immigration cases where someone is challenging a detention decision. Through the Illegal Migration Act 2023, individuals who receive a removal notice under the Act will have access to free legal advice in relation to that notice.
David Linden
The Law Society has warned that a proposed 15% increase in legal aid rates will not be enough to ensure that sufficient immigration lawyers are available to deal with deportations to Rwanda. Charities supporting refugees make 16 attempts on average before securing a lawyer, while in London, charities are only successfully finding legal representation for 4.1% of referrals. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the legal aid sector does not collapse in England and Wales due to the poor decisions made by his colleagues?
Mike Freer
The 15% was agreed after a six-week consultation looking at other increases for other specialist work. The Legal Aid Agency will always keep provision under review to ensure that cover is provided for those who need it.
Richard Thomson
There are approximately 175,000 people trapped in the current asylum backlog, many of them living in hotels with no right to support themselves or their families through work. Instead of unlawful and pointless dog-whistling gestures such as the Government’s Rwanda policy, would it not be better to allow people the opportunity to work and support themselves, and to allow the Home Office and the legal aid system to be resourced adequately so that we can deal with our international obligations exactly as we ought to?
Mike Freer
The question about the Home Office is one the hon. Member may want to raise with Home Office Ministers themselves. On access to legal aid, I would not say that £2 billion of legal aid means this is under-resourced. This year alone, we have continued to increase levels of legal aid across the board, and specifically in specialist areas such as immigration, so I reject the notion that it is underfunded.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Lord Chancellor is currently facing a judicial review over the failure to ensure that immigration legal aid is available to those who need it. For example, the south-west has capacity for fewer than 300 people per year, yet the Bibby Stockholm has capacity for almost 500. Is this not an abject failure of the legal aid system? It is operating exactly how the Government have designed it to: abandoning the most vulnerable to navigate a complex and hostile environment without any recourse to legal representation. Is this moral bankruptcy or incompetence, or is it a combination of both?
Mike Freer
I do not accept that characterisation at all. In fact, this Government are putting legal aid in place to support those affected by the Illegal Migration Act and especially the uplift in fees to ensure that qualified legal advice is available to people, whether physically or through telephone advice. Access to justice, and access to legal aid, is there.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
I am pleased to say that the proportion of prison leavers in employment six months after their release has more than doubled in the two years to March 2023. We have delivered significant reforms in this area, among which are prison employment leads to match prisoners to jobs on release, and business-led employment advisory boards that partner prisoners with industry to benefit from their expertise. While this is very significant progress, there is always more to do, and we are determined to continue to see that figure climb higher.
Andrew Jones
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. We know that ex-offenders are at high risk of homelessness, particularly immediately on release. We also know that being in work significantly reduces that risk, so the link between the probation service and Jobcentre Plus in supporting ex-offenders into work is of critical importance. Will the Minister do everything possible across Government to ensure that ex-offenders leave custody with the best possible chance of getting a job?
Edward Argar
May I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor as prisons and probation Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), for his work in this space?
My hon. Friend, as always, is absolutely spot-on that securing employment and preventing homelessness are essential to tackling reoffending. Those in work are nearly 10% less likely to reoffend. We work closely with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that prison leavers have effective support to prepare for employment on release. For example, prisoners can meet a DWP prison work coach from 12 weeks before release to provide advice on benefits and employment, including day one access to DWP employment programmes, and we continue to foster those strong links.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his response. Veterans very often fall on hard times, find themselves in prison and then become ex-offenders. Has the Minister had any opportunity to work alongside the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs to ensure that priority can be given to help veterans get over the bad times and to re-engage in society again? They have offered so much during their time in the services, and they can do so again if given the opportunity.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is absolutely right to highlight just how much veterans, even when they have got themselves into bother, can offer the community through rehabilitation and through work. Although I have not yet had the opportunity to engage with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, I intend to do so. A whole range of opportunities can work for veterans. Just this weekend, I saw the ex-jockey Ryan Hatch on ITV Racing talking about his work highlighting equine job opportunities—which are often appropriate for veterans—in prisons. I look forward to working with my right hon. Friend—and, indeed, with the hon. Gentleman, if he wishes—on this issue.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Ind)
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
This Government have embarked on the biggest prison building programme since the Victorian era, to create 20,000 modern, secure, rehabilitative places. To date, we have already delivered 5,600 places, a third prison at HMP Millsike is under construction, and last week we secured outline planning permission for our fourth prison, near the existing HMP Gartree in Leicestershire.
Scott Benton
I welcome the delivery of 20,000 additional prison places, as well as plans to deport some foreign criminals, rather than jailing them here in the UK. That will free up spaces and deliver considerable savings to the taxpayer. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to work with the Home Office to mitigate the risk of legal challenges as we seek to deport some of those who may pose a risk to the public?
Alex Chalk
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Between January 2019 and March 2023, 14,700 foreign national offenders were served with deportation orders and removed. As he has indicated, we have expanded the early removal scheme to allow for the removal of FNOs up to 18 months before the end of the custodial element of their sentence, so that we can bring forward the deportation of criminals who should not be here. On his specific point, we work closely with the Home Office to ensure that the right people and processes are in place to resist legal challenges.
Gary Sambrook
I welcome the measures that my right hon. and learned Friend has outlined to increase prison capacity to its largest ever, but he will recognise that capacity in prisons needs to come with capacity in staffing in order to make it a reality. Will he update the House on the progress made so far, particularly in the midlands and Birmingham?
Alex Chalk
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is such a champion on this issue. He is right, and to increase the number of staff we have increased pay, accepting the recommendation of the independent pay review body in full. That means an increase of 7% for band 3 to band 5 officers, which is wing officers up to custodial managers. We are also backing our officers with the roll-out of body-worn videos for every officer on shift, as well as PAVA spray in the adult estate. The net result is that the resignation rate is down significantly. That means more people remaining on the wings, improving the quantity and quality of our prison places overall.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
May I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris), to her well-deserved place on the Treasury Bench? As well as expanding prison capacity, has the Secretary of State looked at the possibility of investing in women’s centres? That was part of the Government’s female offender strategy, but it also has a proven track record in cutting reoffending?
Alex Chalk
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words about my hon. Friend. Yes, absolutely; where the court determines that an alternative disposal is appropriate, we are keen for non-custodial options to be available. That is why we are investing heavily in alternatives. There are cases where women offenders must go to jail, but where that is not necessary we want to ensure that alternatives remain so that rehabilitation can take place in the community.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
Now that the Government have left themselves with no choice but to send fewer people to prison and let more out early because there is simply no space for them, how many convicted criminals are currently on bail awaiting sentence, compared with this time last year? When do the Government expect normal service to resume?
Alex Chalk
I am proud of the fact that, unlike the previous Government, we are rolling out a prison expansion programme—something that entirely defeated the Labour party when it was in office. Labour said it was going to roll out three Titan prisons. How many did it produce? Absolutely none. On bail, it is the case that the number of those awaiting trial is higher, and up by 6,000 compared with the pre-covid period. That is why this Government are expanding capacity on the estate. We have 1,000 more judges, we are increasing the amount of legal aid, and we are ensuring that when people come to be sentenced, unlike under the Labour Government, they are going to prison for longer.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State’s emergency early release scheme is meant to tackle a capacity crisis that is entirely of this Government’s making, and it excludes only serious violence. Surely domestic abuse and stalking are serious offences, yet they are not excluded from early release. What kind of signal does that give to victims, the public, and indeed perpetrators of violence against women and girls?
Alex Chalk
We are proud that under this Government sentences for offences such as rape have gone up by a third. We have a situation in which charges are up, the conviction rate is higher and sentences are longer—and, unlike under the Labour Government, people are spending a higher proportion of those sentences in custody. We think that is the right thing to do. To the hon. Member’s point, the exclusions in place go beyond what he indicated, so he is factually incorrect; they also include sex offences and terrorist offences. Here is a really important point: where the custodial authorities are satisfied that there is a specific risk, there is an opportunity to ensure that release is blocked. That is important, because we will always stand up for victims of crime.
Kevin Brennan
Argument weak? Go long and do not answer the question—the classic response from this Government. The truth is that without any Government announcement of a start date, prisons began releasing offenders over a month ago. These men are already walking our streets, but the Government will not tell us how many, or why they were behind bars in the first place. Why do the Government not believe that the public deserve to know who is being released back into the community when a court decided that they should be in prison?
Alex Chalk
We will make whatever appropriate announcements in due course; we will not demur from that. We will also not apologise for having, under this Government, a higher custodial population than before. We are taking robust steps to ensure that the public are protected, which means unashamedly that those who commit the most serious offences—those such as murder in the context of sexual or sadistic conduct—go to prison for the rest of their lives. Will the hon. Member support that? I wonder. We are also using the evidence so that those capable of rehabilitation are rehabilitated. One thing that we will not ever put at risk is the threat to women and girls. As the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris), indicated, we have taken steps to ensure that victims of domestic abuse will be properly protected under the Government.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
To earn public confidence, non-custodial sentences must self-evidently be punitive, so that the British people can see that offenders are being punished for their crimes. They must also be enforceable, so that judges and magistrates can be confident that those who step out of line risk being brought back before the court and sentenced to immediate custody. That is why we are doubling the number of the latest GPS tags available to the court, so that offenders can be strictly monitored, and we have increased funding for the probation service by £155 million a year.
Sir Desmond Swayne
It is essential that every advantage be had from the latest monitoring technology, isn’t it?
Alex Chalk
Pithy and perfect—my right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Under the old technology, all that the so-called radio frequency tags could tell the probation service was whether that individual had left the premises to which he had been bailed or curfewed. The modern GPS tags are far more effective, because they can indicate where that person has gone, keeping them under a tight rein. We have additional tags, including alcohol monitoring tags to allow the courts and probation services also to monitor alcohol where that is the root cause of the offending.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
Is the evidence not clear that short prison sentences do not work, and that women’s centres, which deal with drug and alcohol abuse, mental health issues and so on, can be effective? It would make a lot of sense to roll that out for the male population—it is cheaper and it is better.
Alex Chalk
I am delighted to hear that from the hon. Gentleman. We have to follow the evidence, which shows that short sentences of immediate custody lead to a higher reoffending rate than those where the sentence is suspended, albeit on tight conditions, which might include curfew, an unpaid work order and potentially a rehabilitation requirement. Why? Because if the offender fails to comply, the probation service can find them in breach and bring them back before the court, where they will then likely hear the clang of the prison gate. We will follow the evidence. We make no apology for using our custodial estate to lock up the most dangerous offenders for longer and take them out of circulation. But protecting the public also means ensuring that those who would otherwise reoffend get off the conveyor belt of crime.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
By the end of the spending review period, we will have invested nearly £4 billion to deliver an additional 20,000 modern prison places and ensure that the right conditions are in place to rehabilitate prisoners, cut crime and protect the public. The key to effective rehabilitation is the provision of education and skills training, to increase a prisoner’s employability and ensure that they can access employment upon release, alongside providing support for substance misuse, treatment and so on. We are also investing to improve rehabilitative spaces in prison, having delivered our employment hubs, where prisoners can access job vacancies. We will renovate prison workshops through our HMP academies programme.
Rachael Maskell
No glass, just bars at the window; mice and rats; faeces in the gravy; and sewage overflows regularly in his cell. This is not the start of a Victorian novel, but the disgrace experienced by my young constituent, who was locked in his shared cell for 23 and a half hours a day, having never received the vital specialist mental health support that he needed. When can we expect such draconian conditions at HMP Hull to end? What appropriate steps will the Minister take to ensure that people in prison experience rehabilitation, not the conditions that my constituent faced?
Edward Argar
If the hon. Lady would like to write to me, I will be happy to look into that specific case. But in broad terms, in the last financial year this Government invested £217 million in capital and maintenance spending, up from £149 million in 2010-2011. That includes, since 2020, delivering £73 million of capital maintenance projects across Yorkshire. Security is not a dirty word in this context but is vital to creating conditions in which people can be safe and rehabilitated. We continue to work closely with the NHS on improving things such as mental health support for those in prison, but I am happy to engage with her on this issue.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Gareth Bacon)
In 2019 we expanded the unduly lenient sentence scheme to include 14 new offences, including further child sexual offences and coercive or controlling behaviour. We have no immediate plans to extend the scheme further, but we keep it under constant review.
Gareth Johnson
I welcome the new Minister to his place; his is an excellent appointment and I wish him every success. The fact that malicious wounding, actual bodily harm, burglary and even rape, when dealt with in the youth courts, do not come under the unduly lenient sentence scheme is plain wrong. Will he please review that situation, which time and again lets down the victims of those serious crimes?
Gareth Bacon
The unduly lenient sentence scheme is intended for use in serious cases for offenders sentenced in the Crown court. The Attorney General has the power to refer a sentence to the Court of Appeal for review if they believe it is unduly lenient. A youth court can sentence a child to up to two years of detention only. Where a child’s offence is likely to attract a sentence of more than two years, the case must be passed to the Crown court for sentencing, where the scheme therefore applies.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
Stiffening unduly lenient Crown court sentences is all very well, but there will still be delays in the system if there are backlogs in prosecuting in the courts. Up to 25% of criminal barristers have left the profession over the past five years, so what action are the Government taking to address the exodus of criminal barristers?
Gareth Bacon
In recent years the Government have invested an extra £141 million in criminal legal aid, which should expedite a solution to the situation.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Gareth Bacon)
The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 increased the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving from 14 years to life imprisonment. In June 2023, the independent Sentencing Council published revised sentencing guidelines for motoring offences, including for causing death by dangerous driving. It is too early to assess the outcome of those changes, but we regularly publish sentencing statistics on gov.uk. The Sentencing Council also monitors all guidelines in accordance with its statutory duty.
James Wild
I welcome my hon. Friend to his position. It is over a year since Parliament legislated to increase the maximum sentence for death by dangerous driving to life imprisonment. However, three members of my constituent Summer Mace’s family were killed in a horrific incident, and in June the offender got only 10 and a half years. That is totally inadequate. As RoadPeace has shown, far too many sentences are too short. Will my hon. Friend meet me to discuss those sentencing guidelines, so that we can ensure that they reflect what Parliament actually legislated for?
Gareth Bacon
I was very sorry to hear of the death of Paul Carter, Lisa Carter and Jade Mace in January 2023 in a collision caused by Aurelijus Cielevicius, and the devastating consequences for their family and friends. I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned hard on this issue, and I read his Adjournment debate earlier this month. Sentencing is entirely a matter for our independent courts, based on the facts of each case. In July 2023, after Cielevicius was sentenced, the revised Sentencing Council guidelines for causing death by dangerous driving came into force, following the increase of the maximum penalty introduced by the PCSC Act 2022. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that further, should that be helpful.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
The man who was convicted of causing death by careless driving when he killed my young constituent Gregg was sentenced to only nine months in prison. However, because he was charged with causing death by careless driving, not dangerous driving, Gregg’s family had no right to appeal under the Attorney General’s unduly lenient sentence scheme. Will the Minister agree to discuss this with the Attorney General and look into revising the scheme to include causing death by careless driving?
Gareth Bacon
I was very sorry to hear the details of that particular case. I will, of course, be very happy to raise it with the Attorney General.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
We work closely with education providers to drive up standards of teaching and improve academic outcomes. The curriculum offered to children in custody is needs-led and determined by individual aspirations, literacy and numeracy levels, interests and sentence length. Where education provision is inadequate, we will hold providers to account to ensure that children receive the education they need to turn away from crime.
Munira Wilson
Earlier this year, I visited Feltham young offenders institution and witnessed at first hand the very challenging conditions in which dedicated professionals work with young people who have committed the most serious crimes and had a very difficult start in life. Back in 2016, the Charlie Taylor review recommended that we move away from young offenders institutions to secure schools. The Government fully accepted his vision, yet seven years on not a single secure school has opened. One has been built, but it has not admitted any pupils. If the Government are serious about rehabilitating young offenders and cutting reoffending, when will they finally roll out secure schools for those pupils?
Edward Argar
In a previous life as a Minister, as it were, I had youth justice in my portfolio back in 2018-19, and I had the opportunity to visit Feltham at that time. I worked with Charlie Taylor on delivering those recommendations into practice. I am pleased to tell the hon. Lady that we anticipate the first secure school opening in 2024.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Education is vital to reduce violence, especially on the youth estate. However, violence on the youth estate is skyrocketing. Since last year, assaults on staff have increased by 33%. That puts prison staff at risk in their workplace and increases the trauma experienced by children and young people. It can also prolong their rehabilitation. How will the Minister use education and other methods available to him to reduce that violence?
Edward Argar
It is nice to be taking questions from the hon. Lady in her new role as shadow Minister, rather than when she used to question me in the Justice Committee. She is absolutely right to highlight the challenges of violence across the youth estate, which have been too high for too long, and we continue to work hard across all sites to address it. Among the measures put in place, we are ensuring that each child receives a full needs assessment, covering education, psychology, resettlement, health and behavioural support. Education and skills play a vital part in helping children and young people to get their lives back on course, but that must be in the context of a secure environment, because security has to be the premise on which all those other benefits can be delivered.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
To expand probation capacity, we have increased funding by £155 million a year to deliver effective supervision of offenders in the community. In 2020-21 we recruited an additional 1,000 trainee officers, 1,500 more in the following year, and 1,500 more in the year after that. This means that offenders who pose the highest risk to communities will receive robust supervision.
Daniel Zeichner
Successive Conservative Ministers have allowed the criminal justice system to fall into its current parlous state, making many communities, including in Cambridge, less safe. Now they propose to shift the burden from an over-pressed prison service to an over-pressed probation service. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that the money that should have been available to prisons will be moved to the probation service to allow it to keep our communities safe?
Alex Chalk
The first point is not right; since 2010, the overall levels of crime have fallen by 40%. As for the second point, reoffending has dropped from about 32% to about 25%. The third point, on probation, is, with respect, a better one. As we move towards suspended sentence orders, it is right for them to be robust and enforceable so that if people step out of line they can expect to hear the clang of the prison gate, and that is why I am engaging with the leadership of the probation service. Yesterday I also met frontline probation officers, because I want to hear from them how we can ensure that their workload is manageable and they have the resources that they need to keep our communities safe.
Chris Elmore
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I echo the concerns of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the British Independent Retailers Association, which fear that the scrapping of short sentences will only embolden retail criminals. The Secretary of State will know that far too many shop workers face being attacked in shops across the UK, particularly as we approach the festive period. According to the police, there has been a 24% increase in shoplifting in the past year. Can the Secretary of State assure us that the probation service can cope with the expected surge in retail crime, and ensure that those who work in shops will be protected and anyone who attacks them will face the full force of the law?
Alex Chalk
Those who behave in such an appalling way should expect to feel exactly that: the full force of the law. Let me be crystal clear: those who pose a particular threat to individuals can expect to hear the clang of the prison gate. Those who commit offences while subject to an order—be it, for instance, a community order, a stalking prevention order or a domestic abuse protection order—can also expect to be outwith the presumption. Through the use of tags, we can ensure that people who do not abide by stringent requirements—which, by the way, could include not going to a particular shopping precinct—can expect one outcome, and one outcome only: prison.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
In response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), the Secretary of State said that he had recruited 1,000 additional probation officers, but in fact that recruitment campaign has resulted in 76 fewer probation officers between March last year and March this year. Owing to the excessive workload, staff are leaving in droves. The proposed new presumption in favour of extended sentences and the extension of electronic monitoring will simply offload more pressure from prisons on to the probation service, will it not? What are the Government doing to address these issues of excessive workload and the loss of probation staff?
Alex Chalk
On a point of detail, as of 30 September 2023 the increase on the previous year was 4.2% for band 3 probation officers, 6.9% for band 4 officers and 13% for senior probation officers. The so-called attrition rate, or resignation rate, is also down. There are more probation officers, and more of them are remaining in place. The reason that matters is the fact that experience counts. This is an extremely difficult job, and making good judgments requires wisdom and experience. We are investing in the probation service so that its officers can do their job on behalf of our communities.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
Since the last Justice questions, we have introduced a Criminal Justice Bill, which responds rapidly and robustly to the latest criminal threats. It will include strengthened laws to criminalise those who breach trust by taking intimate images without consent; broaden the offence of encouraging and assisting self-harm; give judges the power to order offenders to attend sentencing hearings; and enable the probation service to polygraph-test more terrorists and sex offenders. Meanwhile, the new Sentencing Bill has public protection at its core, making the severest punishments available for the most dangerous offenders, such as murderers who kill with sexual or sadistic conduct, to take them out of circulation forever. It will protect the public by breaking the cycle of reoffending to reduce crime.
We have also welcomed my hon. Friends the Members for Newbury (Laura Farris) and for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) to the Front Bench. As I think the House has already observed, they will make a formidable contribution to public life.
Munira Wilson
The Prime Minister and certain other senior Government figures have suggested that the European convention on human rights should be disapplied in some asylum cases, and the deputy chairman of the Conservative party, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), has said that the Government should simply ignore last week’s Supreme Court ruling. Does the Justice Secretary agree?
Alex Chalk
The Government are confident that we can deliver on the priorities of the British people while remaining within the four corners of our international legal obligations. Make no mistake, we are determined to ensure that our borders are secure. This is a rule of law issue. It should not be the case that those who try to jump the queue and arrive illegally should derive some sort of advantage from that. We understand that clearly on the Government Benches and we will do everything we can to stop the boats.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
Alex Chalk
My hon. Friend speaks with great authority as a magistrate, and I know from my own experience as a practitioner how important stand-down reports are. They provide the bench with information about the offender—their relationship situation, their record of previous convictions, their mental health problems and so on—so that the court can tailor a disposal that punishes the offender but also progresses their rehabilitation. We are working closely with the probation service to ensure that that resource is properly allocated so that we can have more stand-down reports to ensure better justice on the facts of each case.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Contrary to the claims of Ministers at every Question Time that they are getting the courts backlog sorted out, they are not, and the pain just drags on for victims. The Crown court backlog reached a record 65,000 cases at the end of June. Nearly 5,000 of them have been waiting for two years and 36,000 cases have defendants on bail. Why are things still getting worse?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
I have to say, Mr Speaker, that God loves a trier. Yes, the backlog has gone up. The hon. Gentleman will know that post covid and post the Criminal Bar Association strike, the backlog did increase. On top of that, this Government have cracked down on crime with more police officers, and that has meant more people being charged and appearing in court. We are addressing this with unlimited sitting days. We recruited 1,000 judges across all jurisdictions last year and we are doing the same this year. We have invested in the court estate to improve resilience, and we have extended 24 Nightingale courts to ensure that we have capacity.
Alex Cunningham
Come on now—we know that the statistics tell a very different story. The Crown courts remain in crisis, and what about the civil courts? The quarterly civil justice statistics from April to June 2023 show that the average time taken for small claims and multi-fast-tracked claims to go to trial was 52 weeks and 78 weeks respectively. Is it the same excuse for the crisis in the civil courts?
Mike Freer
Since the Government have increased the amount of money spent on the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, we have recruited judges across the jurisdiction to help in the civil courts, increased the number of days that fee-paid judges can do from 30 days to 80 days a year, introduced regional virtual pilots to support London and the south-east, and invested in mediation. All of this is ensuring that people have access to justice in a court system that is dealing with higher numbers of cases than ever before.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Mike Freer
As my right hon. Friend will appreciate, I cannot comment on individual cases, but I can reassure her that the payment of wasted or unreasonable costs can already be ordered by the tribunal if it considers it appropriate. Given the issue that she has raised, however, I would be more than happy to meet her to ensure that her concerns are conveyed firmly to those responsible for the reviews.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Alex Chalk
The hon. Gentleman is right about the eight court buildings, but that is in the context of an estate of over 300 buildings. It is important to note, however, that we have massively increased the budget for the court estate, and that enables us to do two things. First, we can take on more projects and also plan them because we have guaranteed this over two years, meaning that we can plan in a more efficient and effective way. The second issue so far as prisons are concerned is that separate considerations apply because the buildings are used for a whole range of different purposes; there is the prison itself, but there are plenty of ancillary buildings. This is all being inspected in the normal way, and the budget is certainly there to effect remediations if required.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
Alex Chalk
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those people are on the frontline of society, acting effectively in public to do an incredibly important public service. We have already moved to ensure that the courts can treat assaults on shop workers as an aggravating factor when it comes to sentencing. To be clear, this means that, in appropriate cases, the fact that a person has assaulted a retail worker can mean the difference between a non-custodial penalty and a custodial penalty, which is absolutely right. Those who behave in such a cowardly way should expect all consequences.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the judiciary must not make incendiary comments about Israel? At Walsall magistrates court, a district judge recently acquitted defendants who had vandalised a factory, believing it to be supplying Israel, and is reported to have told them their action was
“proportionate in comparison to the crimes against humanity which they were acting to stop.”
Does he agree that judges are supposed to uphold the law, not encourage its breach? This brings our legal system into ill-repute, so will he take this from me as a complaint to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office?
Mr Speaker
Order. We are not meant to criticise the courts, and I know that such a learned Gentleman will know better; I am sure we can avoid any criticism.
Alex Chalk
I simply note the question. Plainly, I make no comment on the specifics. I have heard my right hon. and learned Friend’s point, and I will happily take it up with him subsequently.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight this, as every death in custody is a tragedy. We continue to do all we can to improve the safety of prisoners, both in that respect and in respect of reducing instances of self-harm. We are continuing to deliver on our safety commitment outlined in the prisons strategy White Paper, including by introducing more ligature-resistant cells, funding a study to understand the extent of deaths, and rolling out an emotional resilience and peer-support programme in six prisons. Of course, our staff are vital to this, and I take the opportunity to pay tribute to them; we are investing to support them to continue to do that work.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
In the summer, the Government made a welcome announcement on banning zombie knives and machetes and doubling the sentences for supplying a knife to an under-18 and for possessing a knife with intent to cause harm. Now we are in a new Session, will the Secretary of State set out the timeline for bringing forward legislation to make this happen?
Alex Chalk
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is a passionate and principled campaigner on the issue of public safety. These measures will find their way into the Criminal Justice Bill. I look forward to her support, which I know will be forthcoming. Let us hope that hon. Members right across the House will put public protection as one of their priorities.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
Alex Chalk
It is important to establish what is already available to the police: section 39 on common assault, section 47 on assault occasioning actual bodily harm and—heaven forbid—sections 20 and 18, which relate to more serious cases of grievous bodily harm. Plus, if an individual is convicted on any of those grounds, the courts can—indeed, ought to—consider assault on a retail worker as an aggravating factor. As I have indicated, that can mean the difference between a non-custodial and a custodial penalty.
We will keep these matters under review, but the central point is that before someone can go before the court, they have to be arrested. That is why I am delighted that we have more police officers than at any time in our history, ready to take the fight to those who assault shop workers.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
My right hon. and learned Friend has a terrific record on dealing with SLAPPs—strategic lawsuits against public participation—so he will understand how greedy lawyers encourage their billionaire clients to crush their opponents by extending court cases, dragging them out and multiplying them. What has not been taken on board is that that also costs the taxpayer millions of pounds. I think those lawyers should have to meet those costs. With that in mind, will he publish the costs incurred by SLAPPs cases?
Alex Chalk
No one in this House has done more than my right hon. Friend to clamp down on this iniquitous behaviour, and I am pleased that we have been able to make some progress. He makes a really important point: every day that is spent in court pursuing ill-founded and abusive litigation is time that could be spent on other matters in the public interest. I will certainly look into the interesting suggestion he makes about publishing the cost of that behaviour.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Alex Chalk
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave a few moments ago. There is understandable righteous indignation about the situation that exists. We believe that we can comply and deliver our policies within the four corners of international law—that is our approach. However, those who arrive illegally threaten to corrode the rule of law, because that of itself sends out a poor subliminal message that those who do so can act with impunity. That does not strengthen the rule of law.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
The Justice Secretary will know of the hard work undertaken in this Parliament to bring the Desecration of War Memorials Bill into law. Elements of that Bill were subsumed into the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, but will he now undertake to complete the job?
Alex Chalk
My hon. Friend is one of two hon. Members who have fought hard on this issue, and he does so from the position of having served his country. It is completely iniquitous that people should seek to act in a way that desecrates war memorials. His specific point seems utterly compelling and I am happy to discuss it with him hereafter.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Alex Chalk
I thank the hon. and learned Lady for her point. At the risk of harming her political career, the respect is entirely mutual. In a rule-of-law country, people can disagree with the decision of a court but they must respect it. We respect the ruling and of course we will abide by court orders, but it is also right that we carefully consider what the Supreme Court said and seek to adjust appropriately. We will do what we properly and lawfully can do to stop the boats. That is our mission and the mission of the British people, and we will deliver on it.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend’s commitment to increase the use of tagging, where appropriate, to reduce the amount of reoffending. In doing so, what plans does he have to include high-risk domestic abusers and, potentially in the future, those who are illegal drug users?
Alex Chalk
Not for the first or last time, my hon. and learned Friend has got absolutely to the point. We have deliberately constructed the policy so that if an individual presents a significant threat to a particular individual—often a spouse or a partner—the presumption would not apply. That is critically important and I was happy to discuss that point with Women’s Aid and other relevant bodies. We are on the side of victims of domestic abuse and violence, and nothing that we do will cut across that important principle.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Supporting offenders in practising their faith is regularly cited as playing a key role in their rehabilitation in prisons. However, as the Minister will know from my frequent correspondence with the chief executive of His Majesty’s Prison Service, many prisons either do not provide the facilities required or actively hinder offenders in practising their religion. HMP Full Sutton has been brought to my attention as one such example. Given its importance, will the Minister assure me that a full review of faith provision across the prison estate will be conducted and guarantee that no one will be denied the ability to freely practise their religion?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. He is absolutely right to highlight not only the right of people to practise their religion, but the important role that that can play for those individuals in coping with prison life, rehabilitation and getting on the straight and narrow when they come out. I am happy to engage with him directly on any specific case that he wishes to bring up, and it is an issue that I am happy to look at.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I thank the Courts Minister for his recent letter on recruitment and retention of legal advisers in Essex and the impact that that is having on court listings. Although I know that he and I agree about the independence of the judiciary regarding individual cases, will he meet me to discuss what more might be done to fill the vacancies for legal advisers in Essex?
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Secretary of State has alluded to the continuing reduction in reoffending rates among those leaving prison. Does he agree that central to maintaining confidence in the wider community is that the reoffending rate goes down further still?
Alex Chalk
The hon. Gentleman makes a simple but incredibly important point. We want to follow the evidence so that we protect the public. We will do so, on the one hand, by locking up the most serious offenders for longer and taking them out of circulation, and, on the other, by cutting offending. Fewer crimes mean a better protected public. That is the approach that we will take.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Yesterday, I met former prisoner LJ Flanders who, while serving his sentence, devised a fitness regime that can be conducted in a cell with no special gym equipment. With the support of Bucks Association for the Care of Offenders, he has just run a two-week training programme in HMP Aylesbury to train other prisoners to provide coaching and mentoring of a similar style. Will my right hon. Friend please encourage everybody in His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, particularly governors, to facilitate such courses to reduce reoffending?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who knows about what he speaks. I pay tribute to him for his work in the criminal justice system. He highlights an example that sounds extremely interesting. I would be happy to meet him to hear more about it and to see where we can take things from there.
International Development White Paper
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
Mr Deputy Speaker, since my statement to the House on 18 July, the Government have consulted extensively to secure evidence and ideas on international development that will transform our world. I pay tribute to the team of 15 officials who have worked night and day and most of their weekends for nearly six months on this, under the leadership of Nick Dyer and Annabel Gerry, and to Geraldine Bedell and the Richard Curtis team who have helped with the shortened version of the international development White Paper.
We drew on the sharpest and most expert minds from non-governmental organisations, academia, business, nearly 50 Governments around the world, and all political parties in the House. I particularly wish to thank colleagues across the House for their contributions to shaping this White Paper. This is an area of policy that does not belong either to the Conservative party or to Labour; it is a British policy and commitment.
As the whole House knows, development has helped transform the lives of billions of people. The UK can be immensely proud of our distinct contribution to this incredible success story. Two centuries ago, three quarters of the world lived in extreme poverty. When I was born, around half still did. By 2015, when the world met the millennium development goals, the proportion of a much larger global population had fallen to just 12%. Evidence shows that development works, but it also shows that we now need to think about how we do development.
After decades of hard-won but persistent progress, we live in a world facing a daunting set of challenges: a world that is seeing rising poverty, where progress is in retreat; a world where the UN sustainable development goals are nearly all off track for 2030; a world where faith in multilateral institutions is fading despite co-operation being desperately needed; a world facing a climate crisis, growing conflict and the prospect of further pandemics; a contested world, where unity and solidarity are increasingly important, yet ever more difficult to achieve. This White Paper sets out a road map to 2030, charting the path the UK must take to galvanise global attention and lead by example in the fight to end extreme poverty, tackle climate change and address biodiversity loss.
When it comes to international development, finance matters. The Government have been clear on our intention to return to 0.7% of GNI when the fiscal circumstances permit, but the White Paper also makes it clear that we will not achieve the sustainable development goals through business-as-usual official development assistance funding. We need a quantum leap in financing and investing, which only the private sector can provide. The private sector is an essential engine of development, giving communities the building blocks for economic independence. Self-sufficiency is development’s essential purpose, and our work with the UK private sector delivers back for taxpayers many times over.
British Investment International, formerly known as CDC, is already a core part of the Government’s offer on international development. It has an impressive track record, and now will go further and faster, investing in the hardest places. As was suggested by the International Development Committee, to whom I pay tribute, BII will aim to make more than half of its investments in the poorest and most fragile countries by 2030, while also enhancing its transparency, cementing its place as a world leader.
The White Paper presents our vision for much-needed reform of the international financial system, mobilising greater finance from the private sector and scaling up the lending capacity of the international financial institutions. The UK has pioneered the use of climate-resilient debt clauses, enabling vulnerable countries to hold off on debt repayments following an extreme weather event. Together with Prime Minister Mia Mottley and other supporters of the Bridgetown initiative, we are driving reforms of the multilateral development banks so that they can scale up financing for low and middle-income countries. We will also work with institutional investors such as pension funds to plug the SDG’s $3.9 trillion annual financing gap.
International development and climate action are inseparable. Climate change and nature loss are being felt everywhere, and their impact will only intensify over the next decade. It will be most acute in developing countries, reversing fragile development gains, increasing food prices and compounding insecurity and instability. To meet that challenge, we must mobilise more—and more reliable—finance. We will deliver on our pledge to provide £11.6 billion in international climate finance in the five years up to 2026. We will ensure a balance between adaptation and mitigation financing and provide at least £3 billion to protect and restore nature.
Britain’s work on women and girls is paramount. We cannot understand development unless we see it through the eyes of girls and women. Increasing access to education, empowering women so that they can decide for themselves whether and when they have children, and ending sexual violence are central to economic opportunity and growth. Those rights are universal and should be non-negotiable. The White Paper extends and reinvigorates that work. We will use research and diplomacy to end the preventable deaths of mothers, babies and children. We will deploy policy and investment to defend and advance sexual and reproductive health and rights.
Effective development is rooted in respectful partnerships of equals, but the Government will continue to stand up for our values. We know that individual rights, the rule of law and strong institutions are essential to achieving sustainable development. Take for example the work of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, to which Members of Parliament make such a substantial contribution. It is the UK’s leading champion of democracy globally. We are increasing our support for its work so that we can support fairer, more inclusive and more accountable democratic systems around the world.
We must also find better ways to anticipate and prevent humanitarian crises and the conflicts that often drive them. Conflict and instability are on the rise and hold back development: by 2030 up to two thirds of the world’s poor will live in fragile and conflict-affected contexts. Humanitarian needs are at their highest since 1945, with twice as many people needing assistance compared with five years ago. The resulting devastation is spreading across affected regions, as seen at present in the Sahel and the middle east. The tragic events in Israel and Gaza bring home the humanitarian costs of conflict and violence, with women and children most directly affected.
I am therefore pleased to announce today that we will create a fund dedicating up to 15% of our bilateral humanitarian spend to support resilience and adaptation alongside our delivery of humanitarian relief, which we expect to amount to £1 billion next year. When I visited families in east Africa suffering the worst drought in 40 years, it was clear that the current focus on immediate relief comes at the cost of early thinking and building in resilience and adaptation for the future. The new fund will respond directly to that specific challenge.
Innovation is at the heart of our efforts to transform lives through sustainable growth. The wondrous creativity of science and technology can address problems that money alone will never solve. Only by sharing research and innovating together can we make the breakthroughs that our world needs. The world has never been so intimately connected, nor our fates so closely entwined. Although we can rightly be proud of all we have done to deliver international development, the UK and our global partners must redouble our efforts given the challenges that we faced to achieve those goals.
We asked in the White Paper what the UK could do. We were told to make a new development offer based on mutual respect, powered by finance at scale, and supported by a more responsive international system. We have listened: that is what the White Paper will deliver. The Prime Minister has launched the White Paper to do development more effectively and differently, and yesterday’s global food security summit was an example of that. I commend this statement to the House.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement, for advance sight of the White Paper, and for our frequent conversations about it since I was appointed to my post.
The catastrophe in Gaza is a strong reminder not just of the need for humanitarian assistance and expertise, but of the heavy responsibility that we all face to play our part in the world through the painstaking hard yards of diplomacy, and of the crucial role of development in providing the hope that breathes life into any peace process. I thank the Minister for his personal efforts to bring some energy and direction to this agenda again. In fact, I would go as far as saying that I do not believe that the House would be in a position to consider a new White Paper were he not in post—a view that I think is shared by many on the Opposition Benches.
However, to have an honest conversation about where we are heading, we need a frank assessment of where we have been. There was the mindless vandalism of the decision to take one of our most respected, influential contributions to the world—the partnerships, thought leadership and innovation—and trash the lot to deflect from a domestic crisis. There was the former Prime Minister who, shamed by a young footballer into abandoning his decision to allow children to go hungry in a pandemic, pulled the rug out from under the poorest people in the poorest countries. Make no mistake: that cost lives, but it also cost Britain its reputation as a gold-standard leader in the field. As the Minister said then, it was
“a strategic mistake with deadly consequences.”—[Official Report, 2 March 2021; Vol. 690, c. 118.]
He knows that I admire his determination to speak out against those decisions, and I know that he does not shy away from acknowledging the damage that they have done.
Although the former Prime Minister may be gone, his second in command, whose signature is scrawled across those documents, now sits in No. 10. His short words at the start of the White Paper leave me in no doubt that, although his posture has changed, his position has not. Frankly, asking the man who signed off the devastation of this vital agenda, only to breathe new life into it again, is like calling out the arsonist to put out the fire. For much of the agenda that the Minister set out today, he will have our support. The question is whether he will have that of his Prime Minister.
The Minister is right to recognise that the major obstacle to eliminating extreme poverty is the growing challenge of climate change and debt, but the key is how to resolve it. The multilateral system is strained—much of the world’s debt is owed to private creditors, and over recent decades China’s influence has grown—so we strongly welcome the recognition in the White Paper that Britain’s approach to development must sit in a multipolar world. However, multilateral aid will fall to just 25% of aid spending by 2025. Although the commitments in this White Paper are welcome, the Minister is prioritising multilateralism while his Department prioritises bilateralism. Which is it? We have a strategy at odds with the ambition.
The second problem is that to make the strategy work, the Minister will need to convince the world that Britain is a long-term reliable partner with serious commitment at the highest levels of Government, yet his own White Paper is silent on protecting the overseas development assistance budget from raids from other Departments, after 30% has been raided in the past year by the Home Office alone to pay for spiralling hotel bills and the cost of this Government’s chaos. What chance does he have of convincing the world that this area is a priority for the Government if he cannot convince his colleagues around the Cabinet table? I suspect that on the central issue—the need to deal with debt and finance constraints that block action on climate—he and I have more in common than he does with most of them.
There is much to welcome in the White Paper, but access to finance for many of the most heavily indebted countries is ultimately unachievable. He is embracing some of the new ideas on finance, but when it comes to the central issue of debt, where is the fresh thinking? The outsized role of the City of London compels us to do more. Now is the time not to cling to existing strategies, but to leave no stone unturned.
The problem of climate finance and debt for middle-income countries enables us to focus on low-income countries and the core task of eliminating extreme poverty, but there is far too little in the White Paper about how that can be achieved. We welcome the focus on conflict, but the route out of poverty lies not just in access to finance and in functioning economies, but in self-sustaining health, education and welfare systems designed and run by the people in those countries. What can he do to reassure the House that that is not a second-order issue?
Finally, the Minister and I have discussed the central importance of women and girls many times. They have been among the biggest losers of the decisions of recent decades. Empowering them is the biggest untapped driver of growth in the global economy, and there is no way of meeting the sustainable development goals without closing that shameful gap. That is why they must run like a thread through the whole agenda—not just in addition to it, and not a few pages in a document. Every single decision that comes across his desk must consider whether it does more to empower and enable women and girls to succeed, or less.
I welcome and support the Minister’s commitment to this agenda, but without the political backing, without the budget and without the priority in Government, he will not succeed. He is far more alive to the scale and nature of the problems that Britain and the world face than most of his colleagues, but the challenges of this era demand an end to old ways of thinking and an embracing of the new. I know he is open to it, but are his Government?
Mr Mitchell
I thank the hon. Lady for her co-operation and her kind personal remarks. She will know that, in order to get buy-in from our friends and experts around the world and from the civil service, the White Paper needed to run to 2030. In the unlikely event that my party is not in government after the next election, any other Government would, I hope, build on it to make it a huge success.
I note the hon. Lady’s remarks about the merger of DFID into the Foreign Office. My task, which the Prime Minister gave me, was to try to make the merger work. That means there needs to be an ability within Government to focus on global public goods and delivering them into the 2030s. That is what I am trying to do. She rightly asks how we get the balance right between multilateralism and bilateral funding. The answer is that we use either, depending on what delivers for our taxpayers and what delivers results on the ground. That is the yardstick; there is no ideology. We go with what works and what is best.
The hon. Lady pointed out the increase in spending in other Departments of ODA money and the development budget. It is true that that has gone up, but every penny is spent within the rules laid down by the OECD Development Assistance Committee. We brought in the innovation of the ODA star chamber in Whitehall, co-chaired by the Development Minister and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. There is already clear evidence of that ratcheting up the quality of ODA, as the hon. Lady would wish.
The hon. Lady talked about access to finance for poor countries, which is incredibly important. Mitigation projects in middle-income countries are easy by contrast; when it comes to poor countries and adaptation, it is much more difficult. She will see the emphasis in the White Paper on accepting the advice from the Select Committee on increasing the amount that British International Investment does in poor countries. She will notice, too, the emphasis on social protection, and the fact that 62% of the budget will now be spent in fragile and conflict states.
Finally, the hon. Lady asked about debt, where she is right that we need to do far more. It is absurd that a country such as Ghana can borrow only for seven or eight years, yet our children can get mortgages for 30 years. Ghana borrows at 7%, and our children borrow at 2%. That is clearly completely wrong, but there is a lot of new thinking. She will have seen the climate resilient debt clauses launched by Britain and the work we are doing on the G20 common framework to increase access for countries. It is also important to ensure that the private sector is bound into debt settlements when they affect sovereign states.
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
I welcome the White Paper and its focus on using ODA to leverage private sector investment in the way that my right hon. Friend has described. Whether the MENTARI programme for energy transition in Indonesia or the guarantees that the UK provides to the African Development Bank on climate finance, does he agree that it is the combination of aid and British business that is a real force multiplier in this area?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend knows a great deal about this area from his past ministerial posts, and he is absolutely right. The key trick is to secure the status money, whether provided by the multilateral banks or the development finance institutions, and to marry it with the private sector and the $60 trillion of pension funds out there. If we can marry the two, de-risk through using that status money, and show pension managers what the real risk and the scale of the returns are, we can achieve the holy grail of getting enormous amounts of more money into climate finance, mitigation and adaptation, which is what the Bridgetown agenda is all about.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
The Minister has consulted widely, and he truly has a refreshingly collaborative cross-party approach. We in the SNP broadly welcome the tone of it and some of the detail around mutual respect, listening to local partners, the recognition of civil society and the potential role of diaspora communities. However, the Minister will not be surprised that we want him to go further, and I will list a few of the things I would like to hear more about. SNP colleagues will have more to add on that.
The first and probably the most important thing is the fact that there is no concrete recommitment to 0.7%, as recommended by the International Development Committee. In the entire document of 154 pages, there is one mention of 0.7%, where the White Paper states that the Government will recommit to it
“once the fiscal situation allows.”
If the fiscal situation currently allows for tax cuts, I would say that that moment has arrived. The new Foreign Secretary was instrumental in getting us to 0.7% in the first place, so I hope that he and the Minister will expedite that intention.
Secondly, there is no recommitment to the restoration of programmes that have been cut since 2021, including in Yemen, Syria, Somalia and South Sudan, all of which had cuts of more than 50%, taking several million pounds of their support away. Those nations are all suffering significant repercussions from the climate crisis and the fallout from conflict.
Although I am pleased that women and girls and gender equality are to be put at the centre of bilateral funding, stakeholders have said to me this morning that it is short of the transformative approach espoused by others, including the Scottish Government. Let us not forget that the cuts I just mentioned extended to girls’ education programmes, which is estimated to have resulted in 700,000 fewer girls receiving an education. That is one of the greatest scandals of our lifetime.
Finally, I was surprised that there was nothing in the White Paper about public perception of international aid and how we can challenge and change it. I have my own thoughts on that, but if most right-thinking people understood the role that their Government and their predecessors had played in some of these countries over centuries, and the ongoing legacy of that, they would understand that we have moral obligations. I know the Minister agrees, so I would appreciate his assurance that the omission of that point was simply an oversight. I look forward to continuing with the collaborative approach that he has brought to the role.
Mr Mitchell
I thank the hon. Lady for her party’s collaboration and for the tone and content of what she said. She mentioned that the 0.7% figure does not feature extensively in the White Paper, but the White Paper is about doing development in a different way. We are ratcheting in, through these new mechanisms, billions and billions of pounds, which makes a huge difference. In many ways, it dwarfs the difference between the 0.51% or 0.52% that we are spending at the moment, and the 0.7%. She will have seen at the time of the autumn statement last year that the Treasury estimate of when the two fiscal tests would be satisfied was 2028-29—in March, it was 2027-28. All of us hope that the two tests will be satisfied as soon as possible. As far as I am aware, there is no difference between the policy of the Government and that of the official Opposition on the restoration of the 0.7% target. She talked about cuts in programmes, but the White Paper explains how many of the programmes will be increased. She specifically mentions South Sudan. As the budget is now in much better shape, next year the bilateral programme spending in South Sudan will increase from £47.9 million to £110 million, which is an increase of 130%. The Kenyan bilateral programme spending will increase by 225% and the Jordanian one will increase by 130%. So we are now able to do more through our bilateral programmes. She asked in which areas we would be specifically restoring funding where cuts had been made; she will see in the White Paper that the International Citizen Service is set to return and our aid match will increase. As for the humanitarian work we will do next year, we expect to spend £1 billion on humanitarian relief, plus we have the new resilience and adaptation fund, which will produce an extra 15% on that. The White Paper is long and to many of us it is a most exciting read. A short form is available—I have a copy here—as I mentioned. Thanks to the Richard Curtis team, it is also an excellent read. She chides me for not having made the point about civil society and the platform, but I am delighted to tell her that although I did not mention it in the statement, it is in there; UKDev—UK International Development—is a platform to achieve precisely what she said needs to be achieved in that bridge between civil society and Government and state work.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
May I push back gently on what was said by the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), because many Conservative Members are passionate about this issue, have been supportive of the Minister through thick and thin and really welcome this White Paper? We are hoping that it will be a stepping stone to 0.7% ODA spend. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a symbiotic relationship between our economy and our security, and that our security is dependent on stability abroad? When we step back from helping fragile states, that void is too often filled by authoritarian regimes pursuing a very different agenda.
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend is right on that, and of course he was one of the 26 Conservative Members who voted not to cut the 0.7%. I hope that he will be energised by the alternative means we have found—the multipliers to ratchet in enormous amounts of money. He is right in what he says about the link between defence, development and diplomacy. When he gets a moment to read to read this White Paper, he will be enthused by the lines it is taking.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, knows that I admire much about the mission he has set out in this White Paper, but chapter 3 needed to say a lot more about the money. He could have said more about doubling the fraction of the special drawing rights we share, as Japan is doing, which would have provided an extra £4 billion of development assistance. He could have said more about using the money we get back from the European Investment Bank to invest in building a bigger World Bank in order to unlock $200 billion of concessional lending over the decade ahead. He could have said more about leading a global initiative to keep the interest rate on special drawing rights down so that the International Monetary Fund remains as lender of last resort, rather than China. Those are practical steps that we could work on together—otherwise we end up with all mission and no model, which will not help the world’s poorest.
Mr Mitchell
If the right hon. Gentleman reads with care the chapter to which he referred, he will see that it is one of the most brilliant chapters in it—that is my biased opinion. The reason for that is that we have in Washington an extraordinary team of young and brilliant officials who have enormous influence in the World Bank, and he is a considerable expert on this area. As for the multipliers and making sure that we sweat the balance sheets of these multilateral banks to ratchet in huge amounts of more money, he will see a great deal to please him. If these reforms are implemented, as I believe they will be, driven hard by Britain through the multilateral sector, we will see a vast increase in funding. As for what he says about the SDRs, using them creatively is something we are keen to do. He will recall that at the spring meetings the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that Britain would use its SDRs to the tune of £5.3 billion to elevate the two IMF funds that directly deal with poverty and international development.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
“People, planet, prosperity” is summed up entirely in this document, and I commend my right hon. Friend on the White Paper, particularly chapter 5, which I am passionate about. Building on chapter 3, it is vital that we accelerate the transition and support the Bridgetown initiative. Countries are getting terribly frustrated that although the talk is done and the UK is exceptional, there is a need to make sure that banks are getting the money to the people so that the projects can deliver for people, prosperity and planet.
Mr Mitchell
I thank my right hon. Friend for the tremendous contribution she has made on the matters she is addressing. Chapter 5 directly addresses tackling climate change and biodiversity loss, and delivering economic transformation, and I am glad it has her approval. Chapter 3 deals with mobilising the money and what I described in my response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), the former Deputy Prime Minister, as the “multipliers” and how we ratchet in private sector money. Those will make a fantastic difference and we also have to make sure that this money reaches the poorest people in the world. Britain’s role in the G7, in these international organisations, has always been to focus on the poorest people in the world. We are proud of doing that and the House would expect us to do it. This White Paper amplifies that mission.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I call the Chairperson of the Select Committee on International Development.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Let me start by giving my huge congratulations to the Minister. I hope that the whole House has recognised his personal involvement and the tenacity with which he has got this document out. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I also congratulate our civil servants, who for the past three years have been doing an amazing job in challenging circumstances. I really hope that this White Paper re-establishes our position on the international stage. I particularly welcome the embedding of localism; more money to the poorest; debt relief; and the focus on atrocity prevention. The White Paper outlines several initiatives aimed at increasing the amount of climate finance available for vulnerable countries such as small island development states, which is welcome. The Minister referenced biodiversity loss a couple of times in his statement, but will he explain why no specific mention is made in the White Paper of the loss and damage fund, which I predict will be at the centre of COP28 in the coming weeks?
Mr Mitchell
I thank the Chair of the International Development Committee and, through her, all of its members, who bring their expertise and enthusiasm to this subject with eloquence and skill. She mentions the importance of debt relief and localism, and she is absolutely right on that. She also mentions the work on atrocity prevention, which we have particularly been doing in Sudan since the crisis emerged there. That work is very important and we are finding new ways of amplifying it. What she says about biodiversity may well be true. The White Paper runs to 148 pages. If she and I had our way, it would have been longer, but we have to draw a line somewhere and I yield to no one on the importance of the point she makes about biodiversity. She will know that there has been argument about loss and damage, and a holding position has now been secured, ahead of the COP. That is very important, but loss and damage must do two things. It must get a broader spectrum of where the money is coming from, otherwise we will just be reorienting it within the international development budget and that will be robbing Peter to pay Paul—there is no sense in doing that. The other thing is that it must bring in a wider group of countries, not just the narrow OECD ones that account for aid—it must be wider than that. Those two things are required to make loss and damage work.
Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I very much welcome this White Paper, which reiterates the importance of eliminating gender-based violence. Last week I worked with parliamentarians from across the Commonwealth, thanks to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and my right hon. Friend’s Department, and we resolved that there is a real need for international leadership to effectively challenge what are still called cultural norms—things such as forced marriage, female genital mutilation and rape. Will he join our calls for eliminating gender-based violence to be at the heart of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Samoa next year?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend makes a very interesting point about the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Samoa next year; I will take that away and see what we can do on the matter. Gender-based violence, for the reasons she has often said, is central to what we are doing. We cannot understand all these matters unless we see international development through the eyes of girls and women, so she is absolutely right about that. On gender-based violence, she will be well aware of the work led by my noble Friend Lord Ahmad in the other place, which he continues to do with great vigour and success.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
I welcome the White Paper, but I want to put on record very clearly that it is lukewarm and tepid. It shows how much wreckage has been done in the last three years. I welcome the Minister moving it forward, but we are not moving forward enough.
I have three short questions. First, the Minister referred to the Prime Minister asking him to try to make the merger work. We all know it has been a disaster. It was in the press last week that there was no rationale or reason for it to have happened in the first place. I would like to know why there is no thought put behind restoring that separate Department, because it was world-class, and the world looked to it for leadership.
Secondly, the Minister talked about ODA being legal. It might be legal, but one third of the budget—over £3.7 billion—is being spent on domestic issues of asylum seekers, not on extreme poverty, which he just said is a priority.
Lastly, to reiterate the point made by the Chair of the International Development Committee, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), loss and damage was not mentioned. Two years ago in Scotland, we were world-leading, with the first pledge made by the Scottish Government. When I was at COP27 last year, the UK Government asked me to go and speak to partners on this. I am happy to do that when I am at COP28 in two weeks’ time.
In terms of where the money needs to come from, we need to get behind the Make Polluters Pay programme, which is across the world and is about the largest oil and gas companies that are most responsible for fossil fuels. If we have collective support from this Government and Governments around the world, we will find the money.
Mr Mitchell
On the hon. Gentleman’s last point about loss and damage, I set out the position of the Government. Some progress was made against expectations a couple of weekends ago. Expanding the pool from which the money comes—the payers—perhaps in the way he suggests and trying to find a deeper pool than just the development budget is extremely important.
The hon. Gentleman’s second point was about the percentage of the development budget that goes to pay the first-year costs of asylum seekers. He will know that that is absolutely part of the rules on the way in which the budget is administered. We would be asking for a change in the OECD Development Assistance Committee rules, which is very difficult to achieve, as we have to get 30 countries to agree. We decided not to do that. We did get an extra £2.5 billion out of the Treasury to compensate for it, and he will have noticed that the figure being spent on that has been quite sharply reducing over recent months.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the merger. My views on the merger before I entered Government were fairly lurid, but surely the right thing to do now is to focus on whether we can create an entity that will deliver the global public goods we all support for the 2030s. If we can, that will be building on when we had two Departments. I notice that the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), who speaks for the official Opposition, is nodding at those remarks.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend. This is a comprehensive document that contains some really important strategies. I particularly pay tribute to him for the sections on biodiversity, which he knows I regard as enormously important for a variety of reasons. Climate change and the restoration of nature are all part of an essential task that the world faces over the coming years.
My right hon. Friend mentioned civil society, which plays a really important part in all aspects of development. He knows of my involvement in and support for one of Africa’s leading conservation NGOs, which does valuable work on the ground in Africa. What routes will be available for that organisation and other civil society organisations in the developing world to access the support set out in this White Paper? What channels should they be using?
Mr Mitchell
I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments about the importance of nature and biodiversity, which are very prominent in the White Paper. He asks how civil society can access support. The section of the White Paper about the new platform, UKDev, which I hope he will read with interest, talks about engagement with civil society, but there are a number of programmes that meet his suggestion, including the UK Aid Match programme. Where good charities are using their own money, if the taxpayer puts similar amounts of money alongside that, we are getting two for one—we are getting double the results for the taxpayer’s money.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I echo the words of thanks to the Minister for his assiduous engagement, which is incredibly welcome. There is a lot to welcome in this White Paper, including the focus on the SDGs and the climate crisis. From our conversations, he will know that the Liberal Democrats continue to have concerns about the fact that we are not immediately returning to 0.7% and about the restoration of the Department, because this is not just about money—on that we agree; it is about culture. I met an official in one of our east African embassies who told me that, at the moment, the D in FCDO is silent. While no one would question the Minister’s commitment to this, it must go beyond one man. What are he and his Department doing to change the culture within the FCDO, so that the D is no longer a whimper but a roar?
Mr Mitchell
I think the D is a good deal less silent than it was. I thank the hon. Lady for what she has said. On the immediate return of the money, she is right; that is the stated policy of the Government and, I think, of the official Opposition. On restoring the Department, I draw her attention to what the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) and the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), have said, which is that they have an open mind on this, and they are trying to see where we get to by the time there is a general election, were they to come into government. If we can produce something that is better than the two separate Departments and delivers global public goods in the 2030s, that might well be seen by everyone as a step forward.
The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) is right about the cultural point. To make a merger work—there is no such thing as a merger; one side wins and one side loses, as I learned many years ago in the City of London—the culture is very important. If development practitioners and experts are respected by the traditional British Foreign Office and they work together, as they have done on putting this White Paper together, that is a very great strength indeed.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
One reason the SDGs are off track is that they have not to date recognised that leaving someone behind, whether out of education, a job, healthcare or otherwise, simply on account of their religion or beliefs means they will be poorer. Discrimination and persecution are drivers of poverty, affecting millions globally. I warmly congratulate the Minister on listening and including clear recognition of this in several places in the White Paper, but words need to be turned into action. What action is planned to ensure that religious minorities are taken into account in the design of development assistance programmes and in the forthcoming review of the SDGs?
Mr Mitchell
I am very glad that my hon. Friend—who is, after all, the Government’s envoy on these matters—has already read the White Paper so assiduously. She will, as she said, have noted that there is a clear commitment to do what she sets out, and I have every confidence that working with her, the Government will be able to advance that important agenda.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I also add my congratulations and broad support for the progress in the White Paper, but may I draw the Minister’s attention to the position in Gaza, particularly in relation to humanitarian relief? On top of the 13,000 civilian deaths, half of whom are children, nearly all power plants, hospitals, and water desalination and sewage plants have been destroyed. Does the Minister agree that 20 to 30 trucks of humanitarian assistance a day is a drop in the ocean compared with the 450 a day that were being delivered previously, and that what is really needed is a ceasefire and a peace process resulting in a safe and secure Palestinian and Israeli state?
Mr Mitchell
I think everyone is praying that a peace process will start as soon as possible. We need to get a political track, and as the hon. Lady will know, we are pressing for humanitarian pauses to achieve what she wants us to achieve. I provided a statement to the House last week, and indeed the week before; both went on for an hour and a half and involved 70 Members asking questions, so I do not wish to try Mr Deputy Speaker’s patience by addressing that point directly. However, in the White Paper, the hon. Lady will be able to see Britain’s commitment to humanitarian relief.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
The White Paper is a great blueprint for the UK to once again be a global leader in the fight against antimicrobial resistance, but as my right hon. Friend knows very well, we cannot do this alone. Will he work with his global counterparts and use the White Paper as a platform ahead of the UN General Assembly high-level meeting on AMR, so that we can build the global consensus to tackle it head-on?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of AMR, and we certainly aspire to be a global leader in that area. As he knows, I spoke about AMR when I was in New York earlier this year, and we are guided specifically by Sally Davies, the master of Trinity College Cambridge and former chief medical officer, who is an expert on this matter. AMR is now the world’s third biggest killer after strokes and heart attacks, and we will be prioritising it in the way that my hon. Friend suggests.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
There is a welcome change of tone in the White Paper—the language about partnership, for example, will not be unfamiliar to those of us who have worked with the Scotland-Malawi partnership for many years. However, in all the “Britain is great” language, I cannot see much recognition of the incredible work that has been done over many years by the devolved Administrations, particularly the Scottish Government, who have ambitions further to the UK Government’s on the empowerment of women and girls and, indeed, loss and damage. Can the Minister confirm that the work of the devolved Administrations in international development, and particularly the work of the Scottish Government, is recognised, accepted and valued by the UK Government, given that they count that spending towards the ODA target?
Mr Mitchell
First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution to the White Paper, and for bringing the expertise that he deploys in the International Development Committee to bear on it. We did indeed consult the devolved Administrations; I myself had, I think, two very useful discussions with the Government of Scotland. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I share his view that the work Scotland has done in places such as Malawi is highly effective.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
This outstanding White Paper focuses on a locally led approach to development because, as the Minister has said, co-operation and partnerships are the way forward. As chair of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to increase grant in aid to the WFD’s partnerships for fairer, more inclusive, and accountable democratic systems around the world. For the benefit of my right hon. Friend and the House, may I also highlight that the Cabinet Office’s conflict, security and stability fund recently scored all 103 of its successful bidders, and the WFD came top?
Mr Mitchell
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work he does as chair of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. He will know that the team that put together the White Paper looked carefully at what the WFD does, and recognised the unique contribution it makes, supported as it is across the House and in the other place. I am very glad that, following the public accountability process—which, as my hon. Friend knows, is going on at the moment—we expect to be able to substantially reinforce the funding for the WFD.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), our foreign affairs spokesperson, I welcome many aspects of the White Paper. However, as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Afghan women and girls, I was interested in the case study in the paper that stated that the Government
“will invest further to support women’s full participation in all political dialogue”.
I place on record my thanks to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee for inviting former Afghan MP and Deputy Speaker Fawzia Koofi to appear before it. What steps is the Minister going to take to ensure that full participation? Is he speaking to Afghan female leaders here and in Afghanistan, and how is that happening in the context of budget cuts in the region?
Mr Mitchell
As the hon. Lady knows, next year, we will increase bilateral funding to Afghanistan to £151 million. We are able to do that because the budget is much more carefully targeted and is now properly cultivated to deliver results. On the subject of education and of the treatment of women and girls in Afghanistan, which is absolutely abhorrent, we do everything we can through various mechanisms, including the Afghanistan World Bank trust fund, to boost those important objectives. As the hon. Lady would expect, we focus on trying to win results with that money—which is paid by the British taxpayer—in the best way we possibly can.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
As this excellent paper sets out, the rise in autocratisation, the rise in humanitarian need, and the row-back of women’s rights are all terrifying. They are often linked, and it is women’s voices that are being silenced across the world. A woman’s right to education, to employment and to contraception are basic, fundamental rights. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we really care for the world’s most vulnerable women, we should set aside our party political differences in this House, and get behind this White Paper and make sure its objectives are delivered for women?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend speaks with great wisdom; from what we have heard today, her final point is clearly being achieved, which is very welcome. What she says about women’s voices being silenced and their fundamental rights being fettered is, I fear, absolutely right, and the White Paper addresses that head-on. We are finding ways of stopping impunity and calling to account those people who abuse human rights in a number of new ways that target accountability, and which I know my right hon. Friend—who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on Sudan and South Sudan—welcomes.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his important statement and White Paper. He has stated that humanitarian needs are at their highest level since 1945, and has also rightly stated that the devastating events in Israel and Gaza bring home the humanitarian cost of conflict, which was so powerfully expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). He will agree that humanitarian and development co-operation are key to British foreign policy, so could he outline the Government’s commitment to supporting the ongoing work of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency and the important development and humanitarian work in the middle east, particularly with UNRWA having lost so many staff in Gaza? That ongoing work is needed, both now and for the long term.
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady makes an extremely good point about the increase in humanitarian need—as she rightly, says, it has increased significantly—that I set out in my statement. That is why we have found £1,000 million to allocate in a budget for tackling humanitarian need next year. If she has a chance to look at the White Paper, she will see that it includes the resilience adaptation fund, which is designed to ensure that when crises take place, we can do things such as provide for greater irrigation, water retention and reservoir capacity in a drought, so that in the event that such crises take place again—which, alas, happens all too often—their impact is not as great as before.
The hon. Lady asks specifically about UNRWA. As we know, a very large number of UNRWA humanitarian workers have lost their lives, along with others, in the Gazan conflict. Any attack and any loss of life by a humanitarian worker is deeply to be regretted. Those are people who have put themselves in harm’s way for fellow members of humanity. They are unarmed and just trying to do good to their fellow citizens. On the humanitarian need overall, climate change has particularly exacerbated that, and it is of course the poorest who are hit first and hardest, as the White Paper emphasises.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
The lack of water, sanitation and hygiene facilities in developing countries particularly affects women, especially during childbirth, when they are routinely prescribed prophylactic antibiotics, and a greater number of women suffer from urinary tract infections when toilet facilities are absent. What discussions will the Minister have with partners at COP28 to further the WASH—water, sanitation and hygiene—agenda?
Mr Mitchell
I anticipate, along with my colleagues, having many such discussions, and not only at COP but in other fora. My hon. Friend is entirely right that the absence of water and hygiene facilities hits girls in particular and stops many from going to school. He will know that Education Cannot Wait—an international fund strongly supported by the British taxpayer, to which we allocated £80 million earlier this year—is able directly to help people caught up in conflict in that way. We want them to go to school and they often cannot do so, for the reasons he has given, and Education Cannot Wait tries to alleviate that directly.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I welcome the White Paper and commend the Minister for his persistence on this issue. Does he agree that, in order to maintain public support for programmes such as those outlined in the White Paper, we need to clamp down vigorously on any misappropriation of funds—in the past that has happened in some of these nations—so that the money goes to those who need it, not those who have easier access to it?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Member is right to make it clear that corruption is the cancer in international development spending. That is why we always ensure that, if there is any hint of that, we intervene immediately to stop it. It is also one of the reasons why we so seldom work directly through budget support, where we cannot track so easily the way taxpayers’ money is being spent, but allocate very directly in a way that we—and, more importantly, the Independent Commission for Aid Impact—can properly hold to account.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I, like the Minister, find this White Paper to be an enlightening and exciting read. It goes a long way to setting out our stall for what we want to do on international development, and I commend the civil servants and special advisers for their work on it. It identifies localism, partnership and transparency as being at its core, but could the Minister just say a little more about mobilising finance through British International Investment, and whether more risk needs to be taken in less economically developed countries? As chair of a group supported by HALO and of the Conservative Friends of International Development, I also welcome the focus on conflict prevention and the opportunities to build resilience and adaptation. Could the Minister please say a little more about that, and how this fund is going to work to help in those areas?
Mr Mitchell
I am not remotely surprised that my hon. Friend has already read the whole paper—all 148 pages. It is two pages shorter than the White Paper produced in 2009, but I beg to suggest that it is a rather better read. On BII, we have taken the advice of the Select Committee, recognising that it could do more in the poorest and most difficult countries. BII is investing in a port in Somalia, which, as he will understand, is quite a gritty thing to do, but we will see the funding to the poorest countries from BII rise in the period to 2030 from about 38% to 50%. That is a very significant increase, and one that the Select Committee has urged us to embrace. HALO is a brilliant charity that does work far beyond just dealing with high explosives, and we give it our strong support.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
The White Paper’s focus on fragile and conflict-affected states is to be welcomed, but the Minister will know that, due to their very nature, these can be the most difficult places to operate in. Will he commit to reporting annually to the House so that we can monitor progress on the strategy?
Mr Mitchell
Conflict-affected and fragile states are indeed the most difficult places in which to operate, but they are also two of the most important types of place in which to operate. The hon. Member will be interested to know that, while over half of the development budget goes to the least developed countries, something like 62% goes to fragile and conflict-affected states. There is no doubt that the Select Committee and ICAI will ensure that the focus he requests is maintained.
Alistair Strathern (Mid Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement and the White Paper. Having had just one or two months to speak to my constituents, I know that many of them felt a real sense of dismay about the lack of global action and national leadership on these issues. The welcome return to the focus on the development goals and recognition of the importance of co-ordinated action on the causes and consequences of climate change globally will go down very well with many of my constituents. Although I welcome the recognition of the challenges posed by the barriers to finance and the burden of debt mentioned in the White Paper and the Minister’s remarks, I fear that a lack of ambition in this area may undermine some of the goals set out today. Can the Minister commit to bringing forward in due course further legislative action to ensure that we tackle that burden appropriately, including on private finance, and so have the real ambition we need to see on this agenda?
Mr Mitchell
Ambition is not lacking, but driving these things forward takes an enormous amount of time and is subject to international co-operation, as the hon. Member suggests. However, if he looks at British leadership on climate resilient debt clauses, for example—we introduced them and UK Export Finance, which is the export credits guarantee department of the British Government, is championing them—he will see that these clauses make an enormous difference. For example, if the Government of Ghana are hit by a pandemic, they need all their liquidity to look after their own citizens, but they have to pay interest and capital on their debt. What these clauses mean is that they would get a two-year window during which they can spend their liquidity on their own citizens. That is a small but vital and very impactful innovation. Britain has produced these clauses, and we have done the right thing on that.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The Minister is absolutely right to say that international development and climate change are inseparable, and I commend him for his work in this area. However, many of my constituents have written to me to express frustration about how little the Government are doing at home to attain the sustainable developing goals, and they rightly ask how we can ask other countries to do what we are not doing ourselves. So what does the Minister think I should say to my constituents who are so concerned about the absence of any measures in the King’s Speech against fossil fuels and about tackling poverty at home?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. and learned Member will have seen the huge commitment that Britain has made through the Green Climate Fund internationally. I think that we can be very proud of the leadership that we are giving through the green climate fund, of which we are now the co-chair. On UK achievement of the SDGs, she may recall that in 2019 there was an audit of how Britain was doing. Britain came out very well from that audit, and we will of course have a further audit in due course.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I very much welcome the Minister’s commitment to ensuring that women and girls have the same opportunities within the labour market as men. That could potentially add trillions of pounds more to global GDP in 2025. What steps will and can the Minister take to ensure that women and girls internationally have the means necessary to improve the societies they live in and to accelerate their development, which we all wish to see?
Mr Mitchell
The former Foreign Secretary unveiled Britain’s new women and girls strategy in Sierra Leone this year. It is a very good read—if I may add it to the hon. Member’s reading on international development. I was not an unalloyed fan of the merger, as he knows, but when I got back into the Government I saw that the Foreign Office had completely internalised the importance of putting girls and women right at the centre of everything we do in this area, and it is to be commended for that.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
The Minister is exactly right to say that little development happens in the absence of security. Speaking in 2014, before he joined the Government and during Israel’s Operation Protective Edge, he said that a ceasefire in Gaza should be made permanent before talks move on to addressing wider issues in the middle east peace process. Does he now agree that talks addressing the underlying grievances of the moderates would be part of a successful counter-insurgency campaign, part of bringing about greater security, and hence would foster international development in the middle east?
Mr Mitchell
The quote that the hon. Gentleman found from 2014 was made in very different circumstances, but he is right to say that development will almost always fail where there is no security. Indeed, as Sir Paul Collier memorably said, conflict is “development in reverse”. On the middle east and Gaza—that is not, of course, the subject of the statement, Mr Deputy Speaker—the sooner we can move to a political track in the region, at the United Nations and in the international Assemblies, and start working on what a future two-state solution would look like, with a state for both Israel and Palestine, the better.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
That concludes the statement on the international development White Paper. I thank the Minister for yet another marathon question and answer session.
Veterans Welfare Services
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Johnny Mercer)
With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to update the House on the work that the Government are doing to ensure that our welfare services for veterans are fit for the future.
Under this Prime Minister, what it feels like to be a veteran has fundamentally transformed, with the introduction of defined pathways for veterans to access support, including with housing and healthcare, backed by record amounts of Government funding. As we continue to pave the way forward, we knew the time was right to look back and consider carefully the efficiency and effectiveness of pre-existing services, including some services under the banner of Veterans UK. That is why in March this year my right hon. Friend the Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families and I informed the House that we had commissioned an independent review into a total of seven bodies, including the Veterans Welfare Service, Defence Transition Services and Veterans’ Gateway, which I was pleased was published in full in July.
The welfare services review contained recommendations to improve and simplify welfare provision for veterans across a variety of channels, and it marked the first time that those services had been considered in the round, looking at their role, scope and breadth. The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families and I welcome the review’s findings as an important step in making the UK the best place in the world to be a veteran.
The Government have already committed to responding formally to the review by the end of the year, but Members of the House and their constituents rightly expect an update from me on what progress we have made so far. I am therefore delighted to announce that the Government accept the principles behind the vast majority of the review’s 35 strategic and operational recommendations. Thanks to close collaboration between the Ministry of Defence and the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, I am pleased to update the House on how this Government are taking decisive steps to deliver a number of the review’s recommendations.
First, the “Veterans UK” branding will be retired in 2024, with the Government announcing a replacement in due course. Indeed, as the review acknowledged, staff involved in delivering welfare services for veterans sincerely care about their work, but sometimes analogue processes have historically hampered the level of service provided. With initiatives such as the Government digitalisation programme, backed by £40 million of Government funding, we are confident that the experience of service users will be genuinely transformed. The retirement of the “Veterans UK” branding marks a clean break from the past, and represents a vital step forward in regaining trust between the service and its users.
Secondly, The word “Veterans” will be removed from the title of the Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families—the title will be renamed “Minister for Defence People and Families”. We agree with the review’s recommendation that that will provide clarity about the responsibility for co-ordinating veterans policy across Government. Indeed, although the MOD will continue to provide support—including on pensions and compensation, on transition from service for veterans and their families, and beyond transition on issues resulting from service—the change to the ministerial title further clarifies that the primary duty for co-ordinating veterans policy across Government sits with the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, at the heart of Government in the Cabinet Office, and with me as the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs reporting directly to the Prime Minister in Cabinet.
Thirdly, I can announce that the OVA is currently exploring options for transforming Veterans’ Gateway, which has already had more than one million visits to its online guides. The House will be pleased to know that we have recently launched a refresh project for the gateway, and are in the process of bringing the service into central Government, within the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, ensuring that the gateway delivers streamlined access to the plethora of support available to veterans. Tied into that work, the Ministry of Defence and the Office for Veterans’ Affairs will jointly assess the relationship between Veterans’ Gateway and Veterans UK helplines. We will be mindful throughout of the need to simplify how veterans access support, and ensure that veterans who are unable to access services online, or who have more complex needs, are still supported.
Finally, the welfare services review will, alongside the Veterans and Advisory Pensions Committees Act 2023, contribute to clarifying the future role of the VAPCs in a way that supports the Government’s vision for veterans’ welfare services. Today puts us yet another step closer to delivering on this Government’s ambition to make the UK the best country in the world to be a veteran. I pay particular tribute to the review team, the independent veterans adviser, and all 150 contributors to this review, for the considerable amount of work that went into producing the report in a relatively short space of time. I look forward to publishing the Government’s full response to the review later in the year, and to ensuring that our welfare services for veterans and their families, service leavers and the bereaved community, are as efficient and effective as possible.
This country has an unwavering duty to those who put their life on the line for our freedom. As today’s statement demonstrates, this Government are committed and determined to discharge that duty with the honour and respect that our courageous ex-service personnel deserve, and I commend this statement to the House.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minster for advance sight of the statement. Labour is deeply proud of our veterans, and for the enormous contribution they have made and continue to make to our country.
There was not very much in that statement, but what there is I can welcome. There seem to be two bits of rebranding, and two things that the Minister should already be doing, and that seems to be about it. I was expecting the Minister to have published the full Government response to the independent review of UK Government welfare services for veterans, instead of a statement that is just designed to look busy. When can we expect that Government response? It is due by the end of the year, but we are already in late November so there is not much time left.
As we head into the winter months, the Conservatives are still failing to deliver the support that our veterans and their families deserve. This review is long overdue, but Ministers have been responsible for worsening veterans’ services over the past 13 years. They have created a postcode lottery for veteran support, they have cut employment support for veterans, and they have continued to make little progress in the slow roll-out of veterans’ ID cards. As temperatures drop, the cost of living crisis is going to be tough on families across the country, and our veterans are no exception. People are worried about how they can afford to pay bills, and many could be making that horrific choice between heating and eating, as many did last year and the year before. This is why it is essential that they are able to access the services and support they need here and now.
The veterans’ welfare system can feel “almost impenetrable” for those seeking support. It is “overwhelming and off-putting” leading to a
“distrust of the Ministry of Defence and Veterans UK”.
Those are not my words; they are the damning conclusions of the independent review.
Our veterans do not need empty promises. They need action. As there was not much in today’s statement, we are left with more questions than answers—and here are some more. When will the Government design and articulate a single strategy for veterans’ welfare services, and will that be inclusive of family members and the bereaved? What steps are being taken to prepare personnel throughout their entire military career for civilian life, not just as they come into the transition timeframe? Will the MOD commission a review of tri-service welfare support provision, with a particular focus on transition and the wider discharge welfare provision processes?
Paragraph 4.7 of the independent review states that casework management in veterans welfare services is not fit for purpose due to
“a significant (and out-dated) reliance on paper records”,
and a lack of interoperability with other MOD IT systems. I therefore welcome the introduction of the £40 million digitisation programme that has previously been announced, but will the Minister tell us what proportion of that is being spent on veterans’ welfare services and in what timeframe? Will that end the outdated reliance on paper records that was made clear in the independent review?
Paragraph 4.18 of the review says that welfare managers are “over-stretched”, and paragraph 4.19 says that they are
“fundamentally…not professionally trained to undertake these roles”,
which are part financial adviser, part trauma caseworker, and part social worker, which is
“in stark contrast to…the charity sector”
and has contributed to
“a high turnover of staff in recent years”.
What is the Minister doing to address the training needs and capacity shortages?
It was disappointing that the content-light King’s Speech contained no new legislation to put the armed forces covenant on to the statute book. Labour has been clear that in government we would fully incorporate the armed forces covenant into law. Why does the Minister not agree with us on that? Why does he oppose that Labour policy?
We all understand that veterans’ identity cards will speed up access to services, but throughout the last year the Minister has used various language, which has changed, about when he will hit the targets for delivering them. This time last year, he promised that by summer 2023 all veterans should have received a veterans’ ID card. In April, he moved the goalposts, saying that it would be completed
“by the end of the year”.
Now, as we approach the end of the year, he is claiming that he is delivering on the promise, but not every veteran has an ID card. When will they?
Labour is deeply proud of our veterans. They deserve better than Ministers repeatedly breaking promises, moving the goalposts and failing to deliver the welfare support that our former service personnel and their families deserve. The next Labour Government will stand side by side with veterans and their families, because we are a party committed to fulfilling the important promises our society makes to those who serve. The Conservatives like to talk up their support to veterans, but it is clear—very much like today’s statement—that although there are a lot of words, there is not always a lot of substance.
Johnny Mercer
I will be brief, because I am afraid that whenever the hon. Member rises to talk about veterans, he simply demonstrates his vast lack of knowledge in veterans’ affairs. He asked me questions that he knows, or he should know, are questions not for me but for the Ministry of Defence. For example, how we prepare people when they are in service is nothing to do with veterans’ affairs and veterans’ services. If he wants to stand up in the House and say that veterans’ services have got worse over the last two, three, five or seven years, that is fine, but everybody listening and watching knows that he is simply trying to make a political point and play politics with veterans. I will not waste the House’s time by going into too many of his points.
I have been consistent on veterans’ ID cards. I ask him to look at this and write to me with a time when I ever said that every veteran would have their ID card by the summer of this year. That never happened, and it is important that in this House we do not say things—inadvertently—that may not be correct. We are delivering ID cards by the end of the year, which was always the promise. By January, we will be printing 10,000 a month, and the veterans I speak to are happy with the process.
The hon. Member asked plenty of questions that do not relate to the statement or this area. Again, I implore the Opposition to move away from glib statements about veterans. They need to intellectually apply themselves to how policy can change to improve the lives of veterans. There is a desert on the Opposition Benches, and that is deeply disappointing.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement. He will recall that last year the all-party parliamentary group on veterans did a survey on Veterans UK, and I hope that survey played a small part in the statement. What is his vision for what comes after Veterans UK?
Johnny Mercer
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all the work that he has championed over many years in the APPG, along with all its members. He has specifically focused on Veterans UK. The ambition is to make it far clearer and easier to navigate and understand the functions of Veterans UK, and simultaneously to improve outcomes. The quinquennial review into armed forces compensation, which will report by the end of the year, tied into the full response to the veterans’ welfare review and will go into detail about some of those issues.
I would like to put on the record my sincere thanks to all the staff who work at Veterans UK. I will always rally hard in their defence, because I have been there myself and seen how hard they work. They genuinely care and they are committed, but the resource envelope that they operate in has not been good enough for a long time. The Government have changed that, and I am proud of that, as it will change what it means to be a veteran in the UK.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for the statement, but he cannot escape from the fact that this is quite thin gruel. It amounts to a rebranding exercise, and I cannot think of many veterans who will be excited about what he said.
There is a cost of living crisis, and what veterans want to hear from the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs is what he is doing, or what lobbying he is undertaking, to have practical steps put in place to help them right now. Nothing was said about that, despite that being a matter most pressing for so many veterans who are finding it hard to secure the dignity in retirement to which they should have a right.
The Minister said that veterans must be given the recognition they deserve because they have put their lives on the line on our behalf. He also said that he wants to simplify welfare provision for veterans, yet we continue to see too many veterans struggling to pay for essentials. I am sure he will say that that is not a matter directly for him, but I am keen to hear what lobbying he is undertaking—with his Cabinet colleagues and the Prime Minister, to whom he reports directly—on their behalf. This goes to the heart of veterans’ welfare, which is surely his business.
In the 2021 census, 1 million UK veterans were aged over 65, and an estimated 146,000 were eligible for pension credit, but, by treating military compensation awards as income, some of our poorest veterans and their families are pushed beyond the pension credit threshold and missing out on thousands of pounds of support that other civilians can access. Of course, that extends beyond national support and includes benefits paid out by councils such as housing benefit, council tax support, discretionary housing payments and disabled facilities grants.
When I raised that in the Chamber yesterday, the Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families told me that compensation is calculated with an understanding of how it will interact with welfare benefits. I must tell the Minister that the MOD has not said that before, and that has not been understood heretofore by the British Legion. Perhaps he could explain why compensation incurred as a result of service in the line of duty is not included in mean-tested benefits for civil servants but is for veterans. Will he support—
Johnny Mercer
I get the gist of the question. When it comes to issues that affect the veteran community and what is going on in that space, these are not just ideas that come from Ministers or others sitting around and thinking, “What is the most important thing for veterans?” Cost of living support is one of them, and that is why a number of funds are available. The Royal British Legion has done a terrific job on that over the winter, and the Office for Veterans’ Affairs leans into the armed forces covenant trust fund money as well. Consistently, the No. 1 issue in veterans’ affairs over the last seven years has been the identification of military service among the service charities. That is why between the Ministry of Defence and the OVA we have put so much effort and resource into delivering on our promises on veterans’ ID cards.
The hon. Member raises a legitimate point about the Royal British Legion’s current campaign on separating allocations of income for armed forces compensation scheme awards or similar. We will look at what can be done on that, and we are meeting representatives of the Royal British Legion—I think before Christmas—to work out what is the art of the possible. But I am afraid that I do not agree with her assertion that life is a misery as a veteran in this country. Things have improved exponentially in the last seven to 10 years. Never have opportunities or the support available been like they are now, but we continue to work hard. I always listen to the veterans community and work hard to ensure that we meet that need.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
From his maiden speech onwards, the Minister has relentlessly promoted the cause of service veterans, and the whole House should be grateful to him for it. Even longer in their service are tremendously experienced charities such as Veterans Aid in Victoria, under the inspirational leadership of Dr Hugh Milroy. To what extent is Government strategy drawing on the vast experience of such organisations, which know so much about the frontline issues faced by veterans who fall on hard times or even into destitution?
Johnny Mercer
I pay huge tribute to the charities in this space. I know the work of Veterans Aid, and Hugh does a terrific job down there. The key in all this work is collaboration. Nobody will deliver this by themselves. The expertise in the charity sector is unrivalled. In Op Courage, we have delivered a dedicated mental health care pathway for veterans, which is commissioned centrally but delivered by different charitable partners all over the United Kingdom. It works for the Government, because we know that the services are happening; it works for individuals, because they know that a service is available for them; and it works for the vital charities in the sector, which can have longer-term contracts. We are doing that on homelessness: Op Fortitude has set up a network of wraparound service provision to end homelessness this Christmas. I know that there is always more to do, and I would love to see Veterans Aid and to catch up with where it is with its work.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
The Minister has recently been shown evidence that blood testing was carried out on servicemen in the ’50s and ’60s—testing that the MOD denied existed. His response was to say that he could not do anything and that the nuclear veterans should sue the MOD. To dismiss those veterans in that way is a dereliction of his duty as Veterans Minister, is it not?
Johnny Mercer
I recognise the politicisation of the campaign on nuclear test veterans. The truth is that no one has done more than those on the Government Benches to deliver that medal, more than 70 years later, to our veterans who served.
There is no cover up; I have worked extensively with the Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families to uncover records in this space. Some records were taken, some were not. There is no cover-up policy to discriminate against that cohort. It is simply does not exist. What would be the reason to cover it up rather than look after these people? I have travelled halfway round the world to Fiji to meet them, to look after them, to give them their medals and to try to support them. I rally against the politicisation of this veterans cohort, who will of course continue to drive down this space. We all have a responsibility to act maturely and to ensure that they receive the answers they deserve after a very long time.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. Last year, I ran my first half marathon to raise money for Forces in the Community, a Broxtowe charity that supports veterans through all walks of life. Such small organisations do life-changing work and desperately need our support. Will the Minister lay out what support is in place for small organisations such as Forces in the Community?
Johnny Mercer
Of course. The Armed Forces Covenant Fund Trust is fantastic in that regard. It is an independent body that receives at least £10 million a year from the Government to support vital charities and what they are doing. The charity space is made up of large and small charities, and they are all equally important. They save lives and work on the frontline every day. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and his fundraising, and to all colleagues across the House who support veterans charities, which are a vital part of delivering this nation’s commitment to our armed forces veterans.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
I am sure that we are united in this House in wanting to secure the best outcome for veterans. An important part of that is remembering their service and ensuring that we never forget the sacrifices that they made on behalf of our country. I am conscious that the Minister is sitting next to the Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families, who knows a little more about commemoration, but he will also know that we are very privileged to still have some veterans from Operation Overlord and Operation Market Garden. On behalf of the Government, will he say what work is under way to ensure that there will be a fitting 80th anniversary tribute to them next year?
Johnny Mercer
I pay tribute to the relentless way that the hon. Member provides a voice to veterans in his community and across the country. Next year is an incredibly important year. While we contemporise remembrance, as we did this year in the way we changed the parade and such things, we are incredibly privileged to have people still with us who experienced a conflict that none of us could ever imagine. They are a living and breathing example. The Government are determined to honour that in the correct fashion next year. I look forward to sharing those plans with him in due course.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
I had cause to raise problems with the UK’s handling of some Stroud veterans, particularly those with complex cases, and I thank the Minister for his time in that regard. I can see what an extremely difficult but necessary step the fearless Minister has taken in relation to VUK in his quest to help veterans. Will he talk through the transition period towards the new services, particularly to reassure anybody who is already involved with VUK, and expand on the Veterans’ Gateway timeline and approach?
Johnny Mercer
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for championing these issues over many years. Retiring the brand of Vets UK may seem like a small thing to people who do not know much about veterans. In the veterans community, it is a massive moment to retire that brand and look at what the organisation does in relation to the Office for Veterans’ Affairs. We need to make sure that it does what it says on the tin for our bereaved families and delivers an improved service through the maturity of these reviews, which will be delivered by the end of the year.
Veterans’ Gateway was a fantastic idea when it came in, and it has been run very well by the Royal British Legion over many years, but I have always had an ambition for it to do more. I have a vision of everything being in the palm of your hand in future, so people can go somewhere like Veterans’ Gateway to access support, submit an armed forces compensation scheme application or geolocate support services in the community. It is an exciting vision and we can only do that by bringing it back into Government. It is now back in Government. We are working on those plans, and I will have more to say on that development in due course.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
Veterans and their families are twice as likely to be unpaid carers or in receipt of sickness or disability benefits. Some of the announcements being trailed ahead of tomorrow’s autumn statement have indicated that benefits might see a real-terms cut. It has been suggested the benefits might be increased by 4.6% rather than 6.7% to reflect the October inflation figure rather than the usual September one. Has the Minister discussed with Department for Work and Pensions or Treasury colleagues how the trailed changes might affect veterans and their families?
Johnny Mercer
I have not, and I will not comment on anything to do with tomorrow’s autumn statement.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
I welcome the statement from my right hon. Friend and his work on behalf of veterans across the whole United Kingdom. He takes very seriously the impact on their families, particularly those who have lost loved ones fighting for their country. A lot of good work has been done by the Ministry of Defence and the UK Government on the war widow’s pension issue, but I have been contacted by constituents who are concerned that things have changed somewhat since the original announcement in May, and a significant proportion of the fewer than 400 women may not get the money they were expecting from the UK Government. Will he agree to take that back to the Department to look again?
Johnny Mercer
I work closely with my Ministry of Defence colleagues on that. I started working in 2017 and 2018, and then in 2019 as a Minister, on some sort of recognition of war widows. I am pleased with the work of the Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families and with the ex-gratia payment we have ended up with. That will never replace a pension and it does not value what has been lost on behalf of the nation, but it is designed to recognise that. The Government are clear that that should be available to everyone who is entitled to it, and I will work with my Ministry of Defence colleagues to address the points that my hon. Friend raised.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
It is estimated that some 60,000 ex-service personnel are victims of frozen pension arrangements because they have chosen to live abroad. Whatever the Government’s position on frozen pensions generally, surely these people could and should be treated as a special case. Given the Minister’s responsibility for co-ordinating veterans policy across Government, does he agree that they are a special case and will he represent their concerns across Government?
Johnny Mercer
This is an incredibly difficult issue, with which I am familiar. I have just been on a visit to Australia, where it was raised with me in person. The truth is that this is a Treasury policy area. I recognise that individuals who leave the country want to see their pensions uprated. That is not current policy, but I will always advocate for veterans to be a special case. I continue to make those representations every day that I am in government.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I agree with the Minister that these issues really should not be politicised. I came into the House nearly 20 years ago. I grew up in an Army city, Hereford, and I now represent a constituency in Shropshire. When I came in 20 years ago, there was a lot less provision for veterans in every single aspect of what the Minister outlined today. I commend the fact that the Government are supporting the majority of the 35 strategic and operational recommendations in the review. I put on record my thanks to all the staff and volunteers at the Royal British Legion-backed Battle Back Centre for wounded veterans in Lilleshall in my constituency. May I take this opportunity to say that he has an open invitation to visit?
Johnny Mercer
That is very kind. I try to get around as many such centres as possible. The RBL has done an incredible job over many years with a lot of Battle Back Centres. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I became a Member of Parliament after my experiences in conflict in 2006, 2008, 2009 and 2010. I am here now in 2023 and veterans’ care has been transformed, whichever way we look at it. On dedicated pathways for mental health and physical health, ending homelessness, the criminal justice system and sector initiatives into employment, there has never been a better time to be a veteran. However, we continue to press hard, because we want to make this the best country in the world to be a veteran. I am absolutely determined that we will get there.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
Simply rebranding Veterans UK seems like a superficial move. I am not clear how just changing the name recognises the deep problems that exist in that set-up. What assurances can the Minister give the House and the many veterans who contact me regularly that there will be a root-and-branch review to ensure that existing complaints are dealt with and that veterans receive the service they richly deserve?
Johnny Mercer
I am just looking over my statement again and at no stage have I said that this is a rebranding exercise. The Veterans UK brand is being retired, absolutely, but that is not a rebranding exercise, because then we would have come forward with something else that would be exactly the same. The overarching organisation is being removed, as well as the interrelationships under that between the bereavement services, the compensation services and the welfare services that operate out of Norcross. Look, if people want to take it as a rebrand, that’s fine. I have not said that and that is not what it is going to mean for veterans, but if it fits their narrative, that’s fine by me.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
I welcome the statement, but not as much as I welcome my right hon. and gallant Friend’s role and his enthusiasm to continue to undertake it. That role did not exist under previous Administrations. We all know there is nothing worse than seeing a veteran on the street begging. Recently, I came across a man called Danny at Edgware Road tube station and he was indeed begging. I wrote to the Minister with Danny’s contact details and I am eternally grateful that Danny is now getting the support he deserves, but I do not believe that he should have had to beg for that. I look forward to the Government’s response to the review to ensure that it does not take a Member of Parliament to write to a Minister in the Cabinet Office to get the support that people not only deserve but require.
Johnny Mercer
First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for bringing that case to us. I also pay tribute to those in my private office who work on individual cases like that for veterans every single day and change lives. That is what has happened in Danny’s case.
I do not want to see any veteran sleeping rough because of a lack of provision. Under this Government, we will end that by this Christmas through Op Fortitude, a dedicated pathway out of homelessness, with 910 supported housing placements and £8.5 million. We are incredibly proud of it.
On the point about this position not existing before, I welcome any political debate around veterans. There is a new shadow Minister talking about veterans today; the other one is not here any more. There is no commitment to follow through on what we have done with the Office for Veterans’ Affairs. I have no idea why the Labour party would want to seek a fight on veterans’ affairs. We just want the country to look after them and I think Labour needs to have another look at that tactic.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Let me say on behalf of the people right across Chesterfield that we have an absolute respect for the role played by veterans. I know that people across my constituency want veterans to get the support they need. We have an organisation in Derbyshire, Stand To, which does fantastic work in providing veterans’ support services. I will be writing to that organisation following this statement. I was expecting to be writing to say that the Government were now in a position to provide their response to the review. From what the Minister has been able to say today, he seems keen to make the point that this not just a rebranding exercise; Veterans UK is being stood down, but there will be a replacement. Can he say any more about what will actually replace it, so I can put that in the letter that I am writing to Stand To?
Johnny Mercer
What I try to do in this space is set the objectives. We all know the problems around Veterans UK: the lack of accountability, and the challenges the staff face through the lack of resourcing and the lack of digitisation. We have set out where we want better outcomes, for example in the compensation space. We have set those objectives and what it comes back with we will implement. It will all be tied into the Veterans’ Gateway.
We have an ambition that no one comes in through the wrong front door, does not have to tell their story a number of times, and receives the care and compensation they deserve for their service, but that is a journey and not something I can implement overnight. I know colleagues know this, but it is clear from having conversations with anybody in the veterans space about Veterans UK that it is not where I want it to be. That is what today is about: acknowledging those challenges and understanding why they exist. That has nothing to do with the staff, who have worked incredibly hard over many years but have been traditionally under-resourced by Governments of all colours. They now have a new resource envelope and a real opportunity to deliver professional veterans care, which is what this is all about.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for his ongoing work to support veterans right across the United Kingdom. The Minister will be aware that new research from Queen’s University Belfast has found that Northern Ireland veterans who have been exposed to traumatic events and experienced barriers to care have increased levels of PTSD symptoms and diagnosis. What further assurances can the Minister give me that the needs of veterans who served in Northern Ireland will be supported, given those findings? I am led to believe that the Minister will be visiting Northern Ireland. He would be most welcome in my constituency to visit some of those veterans in the not too distant future.
Johnny Mercer
I thank the hon. Lady for her continued advocacy in this space. As everybody knows, levelling up what it means to be a veteran in Northern Ireland has been absolutely critical to the Government’s work, whether through the very, very difficult legacy Bill or the Northern Ireland Veterans Support Office. The NIVSO is the first directly funded workstream of £500,000 coming out of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, which we are working with the Veterans Commissioner over there to deliver. There are key areas in the veterans’ ecosystem that are delivered by devolved authorities and we respect that. All we are asking is that all veterans get the standard they deserve and I am determined we will get there in Northern Ireland. I am going to Northern Ireland again on 4 and 5 December. I look forward to seeing her and everyone else who is always very kind to me when I come over.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the update. I wonder if he would listen to this voice from the desert from east Durham. Can I draw his attention to the terrific work the East Durham Veterans Trust does to provide mental health support, counselling and advice? It is a much neglected area. Indeed, the Minister’s colleague who is no longer in her place, the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie), mentioned the Veterans’ Gateway. There is some excellent work on a telephone-based app that I have seen, which was pioneered by the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. I hope we will see a lot more of that. May I draw the Minister’s attention to early-day motion 51 in support of a veterans’ bank holiday? Will he look into that suggestion? In this country we are way behind in the number of bank holidays. I think it would be significant for the whole country to highlight veterans’ welfare through a new bank holiday.
Johnny Mercer
You will not find me arguing against more time off, Mr Deputy Speaker! I am always fighting for better services in the veterans space, and I will take that idea of a veterans bank holiday away with me.
When it comes to the issue of mental health, the hon. Gentleman is entirely right. Some small groups have done extraordinary work on the frontline over many years, sitting with veterans throughout the night when no one else is awake or watching, and plugging them into services. We have transformed mental health care services through Op Courage, spending between £22 million and £24 million a year, and there were 19,000 referrals in its first year. There is still a massive amount of unmet need, but we are determined to drive that down so that all these groups feel connected and plugged into services. It is my mission to ensure that no veteran, especially when poorly, does not know where to turn, and I will not rest until we get there.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. His understanding of veterans’ issues has been nurtured by his service in the Army but also by his nature, which leads him to try to help people who are less well off, and I appreciate that very much. I understand that just in the past week his Department has been able to assist people on whose behalf I have been acting for some time, and I thank him for that as well.
Last month it was announced that the Office for Veterans’ Affairs would be providing about half a million pounds of pilot funding to level up medical and welfare services for veterans in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister confirm that all those veterans—every one of them—will qualify for the funding, and that there is no criterion relating to length of service that they will have to meet in order to gain access to the right care?
Johnny Mercer
There is no criterion of that kind. The qualification in this country for being a veteran is 24 hours’ service. We can disagree on whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, but it is the basis of the allocation and all the data that we have had to collect over the last few years to understand what the veterans cohort is actually like. I am not sure what sort of exclusions the hon. Gentleman is referring to—he may wish to speak to me offline—but I have rallied hard against the way in which the politics changes in these things. Individuals’ commitment to the nation is unwavering. There is a standard to which we will adhere when it comes to looking after them following their service, irrespective of where they served in the United Kingdom, and I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for helping us to deliver that over the years.
Points of Order
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. During Justice questions, I sought to ask a question about the comments reported to have been made recently by a district judge in Walsall magistrates court. While I do not wish to question the authority of Mr Speaker, it is my understanding that the judge in question was not one of those covered by the categories described in paragraph 21.23 of “Erskine May”. Can you advise me, therefore, on how I can receive a reply to my question?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order. Mr Speaker has, I understand, reviewed the question and is content for it to be answered.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Laura Farris)
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his perfectly proper question, and I want to reassure him that we have listened to it and the Lord Chancellor will be writing to him in due course.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It has recently been announced that owing to its perilous financial position, Derbyshire County Council has asked the Department for Transport to pause its plans for the Staveley regeneration route bypass. That would mean that £140 million of Government money would not be available to us in Chesterfield for a much needed bypass because of the financial problems of Derbyshire County Council. Obviously the decision was not made by the Department for Transport, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I wonder whether you have been notified of any plans for a statement to be made in the House about the proposed change. If not, how we can ensure that the council and the Department work together to ensure that this important route still goes ahead?
Mr Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is fully aware that that is not a matter for the Chair, but I can say that I have received no indication of any statement to be made this afternoon. The hon. Gentleman’s point is a matter of record, it has been heard, and it will be for those on the Front Bench to decide whether and how they wish to respond.
Media Bill
Tuesday 21st November 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Media Act 2024 View all Media Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lucy Frazer)
I beg to move, That the Bill be read a Second time. I am especially pleased to do so today, as it is World Television Day.
The British media are world renowned. They inform and educate, they challenge and entertain. Content created by our media, be it journalistic exclusives or broadcasting endeavours, attracts domestic and international audiences and helps to drive our creative economy. However, the world in which this content is competing is changing rapidly. Technology has transformed every facet of our lives, and nowhere is that more evident than in the way we watch and consume television and listen to the radio. We have seen the rise of streaming giants and on-demand content, YouTube and smartphones, tablets and TikTok, and all those have combined to reshape our whole broadcasting landscape. Today, that landscape is unrecognisable in the context of what followed the last major reform of the rules that governed broadcasting in 2003.
We need to support the British media to enable them to compete and continue to serve their audiences with high-quality content. We need regulations fit for the digital age, and that is what this Media Bill will give us. In keeping with the Government’s defining mission, the Bill makes long-term decisions for a brighter future for our viewers, our listeners and our public service broadcasters. It is a pro-growth Bill that is designed to level the playing field for public service broadcasters such as the BBC, Channel 4, STV and ITV, among others, so that they can continue to provide first-class content and reach their audiences. As Members will know, we have engaged heavily with all parts of industry, from the streamers to the independent production sector and our public service broadcasters, to get the Bill right, and if we want our broadcasters to be ready for the next wave of technology, it is imperative that we get it right.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Ind)
As the Minister says, the Bill marks a time of huge change in broadcasting and what have you, but the specific concern in Scotland, especially in my part of the world, is that while it mentions and makes provision for S4C, Gaelic broadcasting seems to have been omitted from it. I am sure that that is just an oversight, and that during the Bill’s later stages we will see safeguards in place for Gaelic broadcasting and BBC Alba in particular.
Lucy Frazer
I recognise the great contribution made by Gaelic speakers. We have agreed that we will, in the first instance, bring together the BBC and Scottish Government officials to discuss the co-ordination of funding decisions for Gaelic language production between the two organisations. We considered funding arrangements for minority language broadcasting, including programming for the Gaelic language, at the previous charter review, and those arrangements will be considered again at the next review.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I am sure the Minister will acknowledge the immense importance of public sector broadcasting to the Welsh language. How will she ensure that the Bill reflects the significant challenges faced by S4C in providing a wide range of good-quality programmes for both linear TV and online consumption, and protects the viability of the Welsh medium sector?
Lucy Frazer
We are of course anxious to protect S4C. As it is a public service broadcaster, many of these provisions apply to S4C, which we strongly support.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way; she is being very generous with her time.
In recognising the importance of public service broadcasting to outstanding broadcasting UK-wide but particularly in Wales, we should also recognise that this is not just about Welsh language programmes; it is also about English language programmes produced in Wales. Is my right and learned hon. Friend not saying—entirely correctly—that the Bill is not about protecting public service broadcasters, but about allowing them to compete on a level playing field in doing what they do best?
Lucy Frazer
Absolutely. My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, because this Bill is all about protecting our public service broadcasters, whether that is the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 or S4C, and I am proud to be bringing it forward.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
On the point about public service broadcasting, does my right hon. and learned Friend recognise the growing importance of local television and how the Bill could be improved by making sure that local television coverage is dealt with as a public service broadcaster? It is getting as important as local radio stations such as Swindon 105.5 in my constituency—
Sir Robert Buckland
Swindon 105.5—I recommend you all listen to it, and BBC Wiltshire, of course. It is important that we recognise local television as a public service broadcaster, and an amendment could be made to the Bill in that regard.
Lucy Frazer
I am always happy to discuss matters with my right hon. and learned Friend. This provision will help to protect radio more broadly through the smart speaker provision and there are other measures on protecting. The Government understand the issue of online local news, which is very important, and Ofcom has concluded proposals in relation to its role, but there are always matters we can look at further.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
What is contained in this Bill to address the concern that, in the digital age, the BBC licence fee is simply unsustainable?
Lucy Frazer
My hon. Friend will know that this is a matter that the Government are considering—that is, the question of the licence fee. We have already started looking at the issue that faces the BBC in a changing media landscape. People consume their media in a different way. Last year, 400,000 people did not renew their licence. This is something we are looking at, but it is not a question for this Bill.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
As the Secretary of State knows, Channel 4 is based in Leeds and I thank her for her decision that it should be retained as a public service broadcaster in the public sector. The Media Bill is an opportunity to legislate for new public service broadcasting purposes for media literacy and workforce diversity. They are not currently in the Bill, but is the Secretary of State considering those two issues in relation to the Bill?
Lucy Frazer
As the hon. Member will know, we are bringing forward the matters in this Bill, but he is right to state the importance of Channel 4. We have brought forward measures to ensure that it retains its ability to be sustainable while also protecting independent producers.
I was talking earlier about how it was important to engage to get this Bill right. We have engaged heavily and are very grateful to the wide number of people who have helped to ensure that the Bill has the appropriate scrutiny and has landed in the right place. I would like to put on record my thanks to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage). The Committee invested heavily in the Bill and I am grateful for its recommendations. I want to thank it for its constructive engagement with my Department and for its pre-legislative scrutiny earlier this year. Alongside views from the industry, its reports have played a crucial role in ensuring that the Bill delivers for audiences and listeners.
But it is not just the Select Committee that has called for this Bill. The Welsh Affairs Committee, led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), and the Scottish Affairs Committee have both called for its introduction. I would like to thank Baroness Stowell of Beeston for her leadership of the Communications and Digital Committee, which also called for this Bill’s introduction and worked hard on the issues in it for a number of years. I would like to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), for Aylesbury (Rob Butler), for East Devon (Simon Jupp) and for Warrington South (Andy Carter) for their thoughtful and considered engagement. I would also like to thank the previous iteration of the shadow Front Bench for its support, and I am sure that this shadow Front Bench will also provide constructive engagement.
It is not just films that are central to our creative industries and our national life. We are in a golden age for the silver screen in the UK, and public service broadcasters are the main reason why. Whether it is reality TV shows such as “The Great British Bake-off” and “I’m a Celebrity…Get Me Out of Here!”, or dramas such as “Time”, “Broadchurch” and “The Night Manager”, our public service broadcasters have proven that they can continue to go toe to toe with the streaming giants, but it is clear that this Bill is needed to enable our world-leading broadcasters to compete in an ever-more online world. Measures in the Bill will introduce simpler, more up-to-date rules on what our public service broadcasters have to broadcast and how they reach viewers, making sure that the high-quality public service content for our audiences remains easy to find as viewer habits evolve.
For a renowned public service broadcaster such as Channel 4, this Bill will help to support its long-term sustainability. This includes removing its publisher broadcaster restriction, which will free up Channel 4 to make more of its own content if it wants to, and open new options for diversifying its revenue away from advertising. Alongside this, we are bringing forward measures to safeguard Channel 4’s significant role in driving investment into the production sector. As many Members will recall, I set out the core aspects of this package, which the Government have designed in consultation with Channel 4 and the independent production sector, in a written statement to this House on 8 November.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
I heard the right hon. and learned Lady’s previous answer and I am sure that it came from a good place, but just to be absolutely sure—what we are looking for in Scotland are provisions similar to those for S4C, and if they could be bolted on as things progress, that would be gratefully welcomed. One final point I would make is that Gaelic broadcasting has enjoyed tremendous cross-party support in Scotland, pre-devolution and post-devolution, and I think she should bear that in mind. It is probably the same in Wales with S4C, so hopefully we will get the same provisions as S4C.
Lucy Frazer
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. He will be aware that Alba is not in the same position as S4C because it is a programmer rather than a channel. In that way, it has a relationship with the BBC, and that is how its funding arrangement is determined.
Lucy Frazer
I am going to make some progress.
I was talking about Channel 4, but it is not just Channel 4 that is going to benefit from this Bill. The Bill includes measures specific to S4C, the Welsh language broadcaster. We worked closely with S4C on the provisions in the Bill, which will enable S4C to broaden its reach and offer its content on new platforms in the UK and beyond. The Bill also updates S4C’s public service remit to include digital and online services, and implements in statute other recommendations made in the independent Williams review in 2018. These provisions are a crucial part of the Government’s support for regional and minority language broadcasting. We know how important this kind of broadcasting is, giving many people content in a language familiar to them and providing a cultural outlet for communities across the UK. It was no surprise that, in its recent report on broadcasting in Wales, the Welsh Affairs Committee called on the Government to introduce a media Bill to Parliament as early as possible in the next Session, and I am glad that we have been able to deliver on that commitment.
It is clear that online demand streaming services are now an important part of the broadcasting landscape. From Netflix to iPlayer, they provide huge value to UK audiences and in many cases make significant and growing contributions to the UK economy. While UK audiences enjoy having instant access to the programmes they love, it is also essential that when they watch them on their smart TVs, they enjoy similar protections to live TV.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
As a member of the Welsh Affairs Committee, I would also welcome assurances that our Welsh media broadcasting, S4C, is safeguarded under the Media Bill, but more specifically, can the Secretary of State confirm that the listed events regime will accurately reflect the importance placed by supporters on key competitions including the Six Nations rugby to ensure their status on terrestrial TV?
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Member will know that sport is devolved in Scotland, and if the Welsh Government want to make any recommendations to us in relation to listed events, of course we would be very happy to listen to them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Lucy Frazer
I will make a little progress.
The Bill will provide greater protections for children and vulnerable audiences through a proportionate new on-demand video code, to be drafted and enforced by Ofcom, bringing streaming services in line with the protections that already exist for the audiences of public service broadcasters.
The Bill will also require greater provision of subtitles, audio description and sign language. This will lead to a much improved service for millions of people living with a hearing loss or visual impairment when they watch or listen to television programmes on demand.
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to an expected future interest on this point that I articulated in Westminster Hall.
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for the work she has done to ensure that accessibility is accommodated in this Bill, and particularly for responding to the previous work she did with me and others on subtitling and other accessibility points.
Lucy Frazer
I was pleased to meet my right hon. Friend to discuss these important points, and I am very proud that this Bill will ensure greater access so that those with impairments can enjoy the things that those of us without impairments already enjoy.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
The Secretary of State mentioned the Scottish Affairs Committee, of which I am a member. She will know that, in our report on public broadcasting, we recommended that the Government provide urgent assurances on maintaining Freeview beyond 2034. That chimes very much with her speech to the Royal Television Society, in which she said:
“We want terrestrial television to remain accessible for the foreseeable future.”
Does she anticipate an opportunity in this Bill to ensure we have that guarantee beyond 2034?
Lucy Frazer
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important point, because we want to ensure that everybody has access to television. That is why I made those comments in my speech. We are looking at this matter. There are a number of ongoing reviews to make sure we have evidence bases. I am happy to stay engaged with him on that subject.
From Wimbledon to the FIFA World cup final, live sports are among the most important fixtures on our television schedules every week. To protect British viewers’ access to major sporting events, the Bill will modernise the listed events regime. In line with the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s recommendation, we have acted to close the streaming loophole.
Millions of us tune into the radio every single day to spend time with our favourite presenters or our favourite music. Whether it is Cambridge 105 Radio or LBC, we rely on local radio to keep us entertained and informed. Few know more about this issue than my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South, and I thank him for his tireless work to champion this vital sector. But as modern technology continues to transform how, when and where people tune in, we must ensure that stations across the UK have the right support in place so that they can reach their listeners.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
I am grateful for the Secretary of State’s kind words. One of the issues we have discussed and debated in this Chamber over the last 12 months is the BBC’s decision to reduce local news on many of its local radio stations. I am very supportive of this Bill and welcome the steps to cut red tape for local commercial radio, but can she assure me and this House that there are sufficient provisions to ensure that local news continues on local multiplexes?
Lucy Frazer
I was pleased to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency and to take part in a session on his local radio station. As he knows, the BBC is operationally and editorially independent but, of course, local news is important. We have measures in this Bill to protect local news.
Because listeners increasingly listen to radio using smart speakers, the Bill will require that major smart speakers ensure that the UK radio stations that listeners love remain available on request. The Bill will also remove a number of outdated and burdensome regulations that are holding back the commercial radio sector, while strengthening protections for local news and information.
Finally, one of my central priorities as Secretary of State is to protect media freedom so that our world-leading media can continue to thrive. The Bill has media freedom at its core. One of its most significant measures is the removal of a long-standing threat to that freedom by repealing section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. Section 40 and the possibility of publishers having to pay the legal costs of the people who sue them, even if they win, has hung over our media like a sword of Damocles. The Bill removes the sword for good.
The Labour party, of course, is no friend of the free press. The shadow Secretary of State has, in the past, called for boycotts of some of this country’s most well-respected papers. The Labour party has accused the Government of muddying the waters of this crucial legislation by including the repeal of section 40, but for us the water is clear. The position is clear: we will protect our free press.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
At Justice questions earlier today, the Government were again lauding anti-SLAPP legislation that protects small publishers and investigative journalists from oppressive conduct by wealthy individuals and organisations. That is exactly what section 40 does, and the Minister has completely mischaracterised it. Is it not inconsistency, amounting to hypocrisy, to repeal that provision?
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Gentleman is very knowledgeable on this point, and I am always grateful for his interventions. I am proud that, together with the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), I have brought forward provisions to strengthen the anti-SLAPP regime via a taskforce. The Ministry of Justice has proposed further legislation and the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), who is extremely knowledgeable, will know that currently it applies only to economic crime. Section 40 applies across the board, and SLAPPs are strategic lawsuits of a particular client, so repealing section 40 is necessary. I am proud to be bringing forward that repeal in this Bill.
I am sure that today we will hear significant contributions on this important Bill, and I look forward to the debate. We should be under no illusions about the urgent need to press ahead with reforms. Success today is never a guarantee of success tomorrow, and it is our job, as a Government and as a House, to enact reforms that keep our broadcasters at the top of their game in the years ahead. That is what the Bill will do: levelling the playing field, removing threats to the media’s sustainability, and opening up opportunities for them to maximise their potential and unlock growth. I commend this Bill to the House.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
As the Secretary of State knows, I welcome the introduction of this important and long-overdue Bill. I start by making her an offer: I will work with her on a cross-party basis to get the Bill into law as quickly as possible, subject to the proper scrutiny that would be expected from His Majesty’s Opposition. Britain’s public service broadcasters must be fully equipped with the tools they need to thrive in this intensified era of internet and on-demand television. That is why Labour has been calling on the Government for some time to bring forward many of the measures in the Bill. And it is not just Labour; Ofcom, Select Committees of both Houses, the public service broadcasters, consumers and industry leaders across the sector all back the Bill and want to see it passed into law, and some have done so for many years.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
Further to the point I made to the Secretary of state, and further to the shadow Minister’s excellent point about working co-operatively across the House, would she support a straightforward amendment to protect Gaelic language broadcasting? I hope the Government will do so too.
Thangam Debbonaire
I cannot say whether I would support an amendment until I have seen it, but despite a specific mention of “Gaelic-language content” in the briefing note on the King’s Speech, there seems to be no mention of protecting Gaelic language broadcasting in the Bill, which gives me cause for concern.
I am sure that the Secretary of State understands how frustrating the delay has been to everyone involved and how, unfortunately, it seems to our public service broadcasters, the creative industries and all the talented people who work in them that the Government do not care about them. Much of the delay was down to the pointless war on Channel 4: were the Government going to sell it off and did they think it was publicly funded? Nadine Dorries, their 10th Culture Secretary in 13 years, certainly seemed to think so, which slowed down the Bill.
Not content with chipping away for more than a decade at our remarkably resilient British creative industries, they attempted to take their Tory wrecking ball straight to one of our finest institutions, costing Channel 4 and other PSBs time that they could have used to get on the stronger footing with their international competitors that the Secretary of State has described today. If only the Bill had come sooner.
Selling off Channel 4 was never going to work. It was wrong for viewers and it has only done damage to our creative industries. The Government should not have been contemplating it in the first place. With all that time wasted, looking inwards and wrangling with themselves, they held our public service broadcasters back. The resulting delay to the Bill and all the consequences of that have to sit squarely with the Government. Never again must our PSBs be treated with such disdain.
It may seem like a non sequitur, but the Culture, Media and Sport Committee undertook incredibly thoughtful pre-legislative scrutiny. I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that the Committee’s work added considerably to the quality of the legislation across the piece.
PSBs are important to the wider creative economy because they stimulate growth, create quality jobs and nurture British talent across all our nations and regions, so I welcome the measures in the Bill to boost that success further, particularly those ensuring that PSBs are always carried and given prominence on smart TVs, set-top boxes and streaming sticks. There is still debate about whether “appropriate” prominence, as it is described in the Bill, goes far enough. Would “significant prominence” avoid confusion? As we set the framework and as the Bill moves to Committee, we have to explore what being clear about the mandate to Ofcom actually means.
For many people, the most important part of the Bill is the recognition that PSBs bring us joy and their unique universality brings tens of millions of us together, whether to cheer on the Lionesses, watch Elton at Glastonbury or mourn the late Queen. At a time where loneliness is at an all-time peak, public service content keeps us connected. It is a string threaded through homes in every city, town and village in this country. I welcome the important modernisations to the listed events regime in the Bill—there is a lot to welcome in the Bill—including closing the streamer loophole, so that TV-like services that provide live content via the internet, such as the World cup and Wimbledon, will be brought within scope in the listed events legislation.
However, unfortunately the Government have not taken on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s recommendation to include digital on-demand rights in the regime, so on-demand highlights and online clips can be kept behind paywalls. I know the Government are conducting a review on digital rights, but the deadline for responses to their consultation was last year. I urge the Secretary of State to look down the back of the Culture, Media and Sport sofa—I am very fond of sofa metaphors, I am afraid, so hon. Members may hear more about sofas later—pull that review out and tell us what is in it? If the results of the consultation are not ready in time to be included in the Bill, will the Government include an enabling provision to allow digital rights to be added later?
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Some of the points raised, including those about digital rights, are made by Colin Browne of the Voice of the Listener and Viewer. I recommend that the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State meet him to understand what other points he is concerned about, so they can be addressed during the passage of the Bill?
Thangam Debbonaire
The Father of the House is quite right to draw attention to the Voice of the Listener and Viewer—I believe that organisation is on my call list, so I will chase that up following his kind and sensible suggestion.
Another broad area that I ask the Secretary of State to look at again is children and young people’s television, which has been one of public service broadcasting’s biggest contributions to the life of our country. I am sure we can all name our favourite programmes, which might reveal the age of hon. Members. For me, they are “Jackanory”, “Grange Hill” and “The Magic Roundabout”, but for others they might be “Byker Grove” and “The Story of Tracy Beaker”, tackling issues rarely seen elsewhere in the media. Colleagues are welcome to mention their own favourite TV programmes.
Thangam Debbonaire
Interesting. The hon. Gentleman obviously appreciates the importance of tidying up.
Sadly, I fear that the importance of children’s TV has been lost in the Bill. There has been a dramatic shift in the viewing habits of young people, particularly children over the age of 7, as increasingly parents no longer control viewing. Coupled with the long-term reduction in commissioning of original UK content for children, I am concerned that the Bill does not go far enough.
The Government must ensure that the next generation does not miss out on the high-quality, culturally relevant storytelling, such as “The Wombles”, for which our generations are so thankful to our public service broadcasters. I think I will develop a Wombles theme now. These programmes have a powerful influence on a child’s development. They provide role models—I am sure the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) is an assiduous tidier up as a result of what he watched as a child—inspire ambition and encourage social inclusion. They engage participation in national conversations and develop a child’s understanding, valuing and ownership of what it means to be British.
Children’s TV also makes a significant contribution to the economy and provides quality jobs. It is a key part of our soft power too, promoting tolerance, logic and fair play to children all over the world. The Government must consider the wider consequences for public service broadcasters if children are not consuming as much content as they used to. It is unhelpful for the long-term interests of our public service broadcasters if a generation has little experience of their content. Will the Secretary of State think carefully about how she can work with public service broadcasters to get more quality UK-made children’s content and, crucially, make sure it is as accessible as possible to them?
The Bill is designed to allow current public service broadcasters to fulfil their obligations by taking into account their online delivery platforms, but children also spend a massive proportion of their time on Disney+ or on video-sharing platforms such as YouTube. I urge the Secretary of State to speak with those platforms about how they can provide more quality public service content produced here in the UK.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
There seems to be an excessive amount of advertising on commercial programmes aimed at young children, to the extent that it sometimes seems almost subliminal within the programme. Does my hon. Friend think that area needs to be looked at, because those programmes are using children as a commercial pressure on their parents or guardians?
Thangam Debbonaire
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of work done by the Children’s Media Foundation and I am pleased to note his point. A great concern of mine is that all children’s television and broadcasting ought to be of the highest possible quality. In our country we have that tradition of making great children’s TV.
I am also concerned about the talent pipeline that PSBs rely on. For the past 13 years, successive Tory Governments have failed to understand the importance of creative education for economic growth and jobs. We get announcements with no follow-up, which means they have not taken the issue at all seriously. Government adverts patronised creatives, suggesting that ballerinas should retrain in cyber.
Complementing the aims of the Bill, Labour will back the next generation of creative talent that we know our PSBs need if they are to fulfil the promise offered by the Bill. We will equip the workforce with the skills, knowledge and understanding needed to sustain PSBs and the wider creative industries, which are so necessary to fulfil the pipeline. There will be a broad and balanced education for every child, who will have access to high-quality arts, culture and creativity under a future Labour Government.
I recognise the unique and vital role of the independent sector, as set out in the Bill. As MP for Bristol West, the home of BBC Wildlife, some Channel 4 studios and many creative industries that supply and work for them, I know how important PSBs are, or can be, for driving inward investment into communities across our country. I have seen for myself in my patch how that can stimulate the supply chain and the resilience of the local economy, but I want more for this industry across the country from this Government.
Finally, I welcome the measures in the Bill to give S4C, the Welsh language broadcaster, more flexibility in the modern world, and I welcome the comments that my hon. Friends have made about that.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for giving way and congratulate her on her appointment. The point that I would like to make to the Secretary of State is that, although there is a broad welcome in Wales for the reforms to S4C, it is a channel that seems at the moment to be at a crisis point; perhaps that is going too far—it seems to be in an element of turmoil. I would be very grateful if the Secretary of State would look at what is going on at S4C, starting with the journalism of Martin Shipton on Nation.Cymru, because there are a few issues that need to be addressed.
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, although I think it was probably addressed to the Secretary of State. I agree with him on the importance of S4C, as I am sure we all do. I want S4C to have more flexibility in the modern world, but I did note, as has been raised by other colleagues, that there is no specific mention of protecting Gaelic broadcasting in the future. That is despite an explicit mention of it in the King’s Speech, so I would be grateful if the Secretary of State could clarify what has changed by the next stage of the Bill.
I thank the Secretary of State for bringing forward the measures in the Bill and urge her to listen to the comments that I have raised today, and those that my colleagues and others across the House will raise, because there is a great deal of cross-party consensus. We all want the Bill to be as good as it possibly can be. I reiterate my offer to work with her to get the Bill through Parliament in the best shape possible and to do so as smoothly as possible. Labour will back this Bill to back our public service broadcasters.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
I echo the sentiment of others. It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire). In continuing with the spirit of non-partisanship that she expressed, I, too, hope that the Bill will get through the House quickly and think that we should congratulate the Secretary of State on getting this far. As she said, it is 20 years since we last had a significant media Bill of this size. Most of the big names that we think of in the media now, apart from the public service broadcasters, would not have meant anything or, indeed, did not exist at the time. I suspect that when the 2003 Act was being prepared, the biggest disruptor around was Blockbuster Video—[Interruption.] I can see a few memories being sparked across the House. That was the case then; companies come and go, but the importance of the sector continues.
This Bill is so important and timely for two reasons. The first is the economic importance of the creative sector; the creative industries are one of the Chancellor’s five important growth sectors—and rightly so, as they contribute something like £108 billion to the economy and support something like 2 million jobs. They are an extremely important part of the British economy and also help to spread British soft power around the world. Those institutions that provide great creative content are some of the things that people around the world most admire about this country.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
When I was last in the United States, before the pandemic, I was astounded by how many people asked me if I had heard of “The Crown” or “Downton Abbey”. If that was not an example of the soft power that our creative industries give this country, then I know of no better.
Damian Green
The hon. Gentleman is of course quite right, with the slight caveat that of course “The Crown” is made by Netflix—one of the global disruptors that produce great work that we watch, but also give rise to the necessity to protect our own British public service broadcasters.
Arguably even more important than the economic importance of our public service broadcasters is their cultural importance; in a global world—where, indeed, people can take British stories but produce them in a global context—we need a British voice or a collection of voices. At a time when our society is riven with divisions, we need activities and means of expression that remind us all of what we share, so the media, which both create and carry those illustrations of our shared experiences, are more important than ever. The protections in the Bill are important not just for our economy, but for the flourishing of our culture, and I can think of few more important things that a Government can address.
Stephen Crabb
My right hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point about British soft power and projecting British culture on the world stage. Does he agree that, within that, there is also huge scope for projecting the variety of what modern Britain looks like? Does he agree that, whether it is through programmes on Disney+ like “Welcome to Wrexham” or through the Welsh public service broadcasters, projecting Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish identities as part of that overall industry is an incredibly important thing in the 21st century?
Damian Green
Partly as a fellow Welsh man, I completely agree with my right hon. Friend that it is about the subtlety of British culture. There is one recognisable British culture, but within that there are many streams of different cultures, and preserving each is extremely important—not just by itself but also to preserve the whole British culture. Precisely because we have not just one public service broadcaster—it is not just the BBC, but people from ITV, Channel 4, S4C and Channel 5 doing great work—we get the ability to project diversity of voices within the wider British voice. That is extremely important.
Ian Blackford
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving way. I had hoped that there would be consensus right across the House on epistle he is giving on the importance of the Gaelic language, and that an amendment to make sure that the Gaelic language is protected should be supported across the House. If I may say so, there is a Gaelic TV station, BBC Alba Radio nan Gàidheal —in contrast to what was perhaps said from the Dispatch Box. It is important that we have that parity of esteem and that we can consider the funding that is necessary to allow the station to flourish.
Damian Green
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. As that matter is not in the Bill, I have not considered it very carefully. If I may say so, I thought that it was an expression of wisdom on the part of the shadow Secretary of State when she made the point that she could not commit to supporting an amendment that she had not seen. I think that is a good rule for everyone.
I wish to concentrate briefly on five areas covered by the Bill, the first of which is indeed Channel 4. It is what is not here that I celebrate as much as what is, because the Secretary of State took an early and wise decision not to proceed with a wholesale privatisation of Channel 4. I always thought that that policy was based on two pillars that were mutually incompatible; there was an argument that Channel 4 had no commercial future and was not viable, and a separate argument that it could be sold off and raise a huge sum of money for the Treasury. It seemed to me that we could make a plausible argument for either of those propositions, but it was really impossible to make a plausible argument for both those propositions at the same time, and that seemed to be what the Government were seeking to do for a time.
I wholeheartedly congratulate the Secretary of State on moving on from that policy and finding new ways to make Channel 4 viable in the long term, because that is extremely important. The way that the Government have chosen to do that is to remove the publisher-broadcaster restriction to allow Channel 4 to start making some of its own content. I merely observe at this stage that I hope that that will be done very cautiously, because among the virtues of Channel 4 is not just what it broadcasts, but the fact that it has promoted the growth of an enormous sector of production companies—some very small and some that have grown to be very large—and it is that ecosystem that has allowed much the successful creativity in recent decades, for more than 40 years.
I should declare an interest, because I was working for “Channel 4 News” the day the station started. I was there from day one. I suspect that, particularly given that the early reception of “Channel 4 News” was—how shall I put it?—not wholly positive, if somebody had told us then that the programme would still be on air at the same time every night as it was in 1982 when the station started, we would all have dropped down dead with shock. Nevertheless, it is still there and it is still controversial, and many other excellent things have been produced by the channel.
That has allowed other production companies to flourish, so I hope that, as Channel 4 moves cautiously towards producing some of its own programmes, it recognises, and the regulator and the Government recognise, that preserving that ecosystem of independent companies is hugely important. Channel 4 says that its move into in-house TV production will be gradual and will build on the existing diversity in the market; I very much hope that it observes that and that there is not too much conflict between proceeding cautiously with that and maintaining the channel’s overall viability.
The second detail in the Bill that I would like to deal with is preserving the prominence of public broadcasters on the new platforms that people use to watch TV. I welcome the measures in the Bill, but with some caveats. It is obviously important to ensure that UK users can easily find the public service content they value; despite the increasingly diverse global marketplace that we have discussed, about seven in 10 UK adults want UK life and culture represented on screen, and that is the core purpose of the public service broadcasters.
If I may pick up on the many gratifying favourable references to the CMS Committee, on which I serve under the enlightened chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), we have suggested that PSBs should be given “significant”, not just “appropriate”, prominence on all platforms. We think that that will be a better way to protect the long-term interest of the PSBs, and it can be done by introducing amendments to proposed new section 362AM of the Communications Act 2003 on the Ofcom code of practice, so it is not a complicated thing to do.
Another detailed point I would make is that the Bill creates a level playing field in the must-carry/must-offer section for commercial PSBs in their negotiations with the programmers about how they will be carried, but not for the BBC. An amendment to that part of the Bill covering the must-carry obligations, setting out that a regulated platform should act consistently with the equivalent BBC charter and framework agreement provisions, would address that small point.
The next point I will concentrate on is listed events, and here I echo some of the remarks made earlier in the debate: it is very welcome that the loophole about streaming services has been closed. That will be a significant step forward in the way people watch big sporting events in particular, but again I commend to Ministers a recommendation of the Select Committee that the Government should go further and include digital on-demand rights as well, because that is how many people will watch big sporting events—something that brings the country together—in future. With the Tokyo Olympics in 2021, which were obviously in a different time zone, some digital on-demand clips and highlights reached 10 times more people than the live TV coverage where an event had seen some British success overnight in this country.
If we look ahead to future great sporting events, the men’s football World cup is in the USA, Mexico and Canada, and the 2028 and 2032 Olympics are in the USA and Australia respectively. Those are all inconvenient time zones for most British viewers, so extending the regime to on-demand rights would make a lot of difference to a lot of viewers.
I echo the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), the former Lord Chancellor, about local TV. Those channels provide valuable services and I think they could be included in the licensed public service channel definition in the Bill. Allowing some guaranteed prominence for local TV services in the new TV ecology would help to ensure sustainability for that sector, which is increasingly important.
My final point is about radio. I am a lifelong fan of radio, and I am impressed and surprised by how the medium is flourishing in this area of infinite choice, particularly when it comes to music listening. For years, people have thought that the existence of services such as Spotify would kill off radio, but the opposite seems to be happening: there is more radio listening than ever. That is a tribute to all those in the radio sector, both BBC and commercial services, who have done an incredible job of preserving new generations of listeners.
As another word of congratulation to Ministers, I am delighted that, after some doubt, part 6 on the radio sector has been included in the Bill, because there are some very important protections that are needed. As online listening grows, radio stations are becoming increasingly reliant on global technology platforms that produce smart speakers to reach their listeners. It is important, at this stage in the development of radio, that we stop platforms’ potential abuse of their market position by charging for access to UK radio services or inserting their own adverts in commercial radio services, so those protections are very welcome.
Stephen Crabb
On that point about the growth of the radio sector, does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the real success stories of recent years is the emergence of a new generation of digital community stations to plug the gap of the local commercial stations that have become part of national groups and lost some of their local rootedness? Does he further agree that Ofcom should look at releasing more FM licences so that those new digital community stations can grow, especially in areas such as mine in west Wales, where take-up of digital radio is perhaps lower than elsewhere?
Damian Green
I do, because in an era when the biggest media have become completely global, what we used to call hyper-localism is important in all media. Radio Ashford in my constituency does what it says on the tin—it is very local. It is strictly about the town and it competes with the BBC’s offering on Radio Kent, which is broader and, like all BBC local radio, for a large part of the day is regional rather than even county-based. The capacity to have properly local services is very important.
If I may suggest a way in which those welcome protections could be strengthened even further, Ministers should consider expanding them to include online-only radio content such as podcasts and catch-up radio content, and indeed the systems in vehicles—that is where a significant proportion of radio listening takes place—which are not protected in the Bill as it stands.
Ian Blackford
It is important in that context that we give consideration to the community radio stations that broadcast on FM—I have a number in my constituency, including Skye FM, Two Lochs Radio, Nevis Radio—which are very often hand to mouth. It is important that Government agencies conducting advertising through local radio stations remember the importance of those community stations and their high level of reach. They need to be given their fair share in that regard.
Damian Green
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who makes a powerful point.
To conclude, the Bill is welcome. Many of the individual measures are welcome and necessary. Some could and should be improved, and I am sure that they will be as the Bill is scrutinised in its various stages. Overall, I am delighted that the Bill is now before the House, and I wish it, and the Ministers carrying it through, well.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I appreciate having the opportunity to lead for the SNP on Second Reading. My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson), who usually leads on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, has been unable to come along, so I have stepped into the breach, as it were, and agreed to manage the Media Bill for the SNP.
Although the Bill is welcome and takes a number of positive steps forward, I am concerned about how over-complicated some of it is. The Bill amends the Communications Act 2003, the Broadcasting Act 1996 and the Broadcasting Act 1990. Apart from amendments to corporation Acts and tax Acts, I have not seen anything quite this complicated. If I were a broadcaster or worked in this area, I would find it difficult to find all the information I needed even to comply with the legislation because of its complicated nature. The Media Bill mostly amends those three pieces of legislation, as well as a few others in smaller technical ways—smaller technical amendments are absolutely standard—but it has been done in a complicated way that will make it difficult to find some of the definitions.
I was looking, for example, for the definition of “programme”. I was directed to the Communications Act 2003, which directed me to the Broadcasting Act 1990, which then told me what the definition was. I have yet to find out the definition of “person”. Perhaps the Minister could furnish me with information on where I could find that definition in those three pieces of legislation. I did, however, find out that when it comes to choosing programmes and organising programming, an algorithm can be counted as a “person” if someone is assisted by an algorithm. I would find it very helpful if the Minister pointed me in the direction of the definition of “person”, which is used a significant number of times in the Bill when it talks about a person who is in charge of programming. Does the word “person” also relate to an entity or a group of people if they are in charge of programming? It would be helpful to have more information on that.
I am slightly concerned about other definitions and uses of words. The requirement for Ofcom to work out that there is a sufficiency of something without there being any clarity on what “sufficiency” means is slightly concerning, because something that I see as sufficient may not be seen as sufficient by somebody else. If there were more information on what “sufficient” meant, there would be more clarity on the changes to Channel 4 as a proportion of expenditure, for example, as opposed to a proportion of programming. “Sufficiency” is not sufficiently defined in the Bill.
The shadow Secretary of State mentioned the word “appropriate” in respect of the availability of public sector broadcasters through internet services, and raised concerns about whether it should be re-termed as “significant”. That would probably give those broadcasters the level of prominence that we expect and want them to have, so that people can access their services in the way that they want and expect. I agree that there could be a different way of doing that.
I will come to a number of different issues, but let me touch on the requirement on the prominence of services. That is important, and I am glad that the Government have chosen to tackle the prominence of services. The order in which public service broadcasters appear—particularly for those who use Amazon Fire Sticks, for example—is important. As those broadcasters have responsibilities that other broadcasters do not, it is important that they are given a level of primacy.
However, I am concerned that the App Store and the Google Play Store are not included in the measures, given the way in which such organisations—particularly the App Store—have behaved. They have said, “We can carry things such as the BBC iPlayer or the STV player only if you give us a significant slice of your revenue.” That is not acceptable. If people look up the BBC iPlayer on the App Store, it should be the top result, rather than being placed further down because Apple has had an argument with the BBC about it. It is inappropriate for Apple to charge the BBC significant amounts of money for a level of prominence that the BBC should have by right as a public service broadcaster. That is important not just in relation to the software in the Fire Stick, for example—or however we choose to view our video-on-demand services—but in the prominence that public service broadcaster apps, such as Channel 4 on demand and BBC iPlayer, are given. The same applies to BBC Sounds in radio access. Those broadcasters should not be charged significant amounts for that prominence.
While I am on radio, I appreciate what has been said about ensuring that Alexa and Siri provide the correct radio station. I would really like Alexa or Siri to play Taylor Swift when I ask for her, rather than Rage Against the Machine. It is not that they are trying to provide me with something else; it is that they do not understand my Scottish accent. Improving the listening ability of those services so that they can play the song that I want would be incredibly helpful.
I like the provisions on advertising. In some cases, it is not Alexa or Siri making decisions on advertising; it is TuneIn Radio—or whichever programme Alexa or Siri is playing through—that is making those decisions. As long as that provision applies to how we hear advertising, rather than who deals with the background stuff, I am happy enough with the measures.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), who has just headed out of the Chamber, on the importance of local radio. In my constituency, Station House Media Unit—known as shmu—does local magazines as well as a significant amount of local radio. It feels really rooted in our communities in a way that, as the right hon. Member said, larger stations that have been taken over by other companies do not.
I appreciate the level of children’s content we have had, particularly on the BBC, having watched CBeebies with my children. When I was younger, I went to a fancy dress party dressed as a Tweenie. I cannot remember whether I was Bella, Milo, Fizz or Jake, but I can tell the House that I did not have to look up those names, because I remembered them. They are ingrained in my soul, having watched the show with my little sisters. They are significantly younger than me, which is why I mention such a recent television programme.
Ofcom has had to scale up massively to service the provisions of the Online Safety Act 2023. I am appreciative of that, and I have a lot of time for the growth in capacity and the number of excellent people it has brought in to do the work. Can the Minister give us a level of reassurance that, for the policing of this area, the writing of the regulations and guidance that this Bill will require and the different interactions that Ofcom will be having, in particular with video-on-demand services, it will have the number of individuals and capacity and resource to be able to undertake such additional layers of work? I am aware that Ofcom is doing significant portions of work around broadcasting already, but I do not want it to have to stretch itself when it is already having to grow at pace. I am concerned that there are not even the number of qualified individuals to take on that work, given how specialised and important it is. Can the Minister reassure me that he is having conversations at least with Ofcom about its capacity when this legislation comes in?
A number of my colleagues have mentioned the Gaelic language and the issues around it. Of course, those could all be solved by devolving broadcasting to the Scottish Government, but in lieu of that, I will highlight some of the disparities. The Secretary of State was perhaps getting a little confused between BBC Alba and MG Alba, which are two different organisations. [Interruption.] Alba—my pronunciation is nearly there. I am an east-coaster. The two organisations are different and operate differently. We appreciate the support being given to S4C, which is a good thing, but we have a disparity, as £89 million of licence fee is going to S4C, whereas only £10 million is going to the Gaelic language. There is a requirement for a quota of at least 10 hours a week of Welsh language programming, but no requirement for a similar quota for Gaelic programming. I am concerned by that.
Jamie Stone
The hon. Member is making a very good point about the Gaelic language. I absolutely hate to say this in this place, but my constituency has a few native Gaelic speakers—there are so few of them. I pray that in a few years’ time another generation will have the language. Gaelic is in a vulnerable situation, which reinforces her point.
Kirsty Blackman
I very much appreciate the hon. Member’s point. I went to visit a Gaelic nursery in Aberdeen a couple of years ago. Staff there were concerned about the reduction in Gaelic programming for children, because outside the nursery the children were not necessarily getting the exposure to Gaelic that they might have had if they had lived in Skye or the Western Isles. They were concerned that, just because they had chosen not to live in those communities, the language embedded in those children and their ability to access TV programmes in their native first language was significantly reduced. I am concerned by the disparity. I hope the Minister appreciates that we are coming from a good place in trying to ensure the protection of Gaelic, some level of parity and that people across Scotland can access it.
I will highlight specifically what the Bill states. It states that there has to be
“a sufficient quantity of audiovisual content that is in, or mainly in, a recognised regional or minority language”.
Later, the Bill states that
“‘recognised regional or minority language’ means Welsh, the Gaelic language as spoken in Scotland, Irish, Scots, Ulster Scots or Cornish.”
The Bill does not define what “a sufficient quantity” is. It does not say whether it will be measured on the basis of the percentage of people who speak that language in each of the countries. That wording is concerning, and given that there is a quota for Welsh programming, it is disappointing that there is not a similarly recognised quota for any of the other languages.
Ian Blackford
My hon. Friend is making some strong points, and all of us on the SNP Benches support full funding for S4C, but it is specifically worth saying that there is no index-linking of the funding available for MG Alba. In many respects, the situation that Gaelic broadcasting is now facing is even worse than people might consider, because in real terms the funding available for MG Alba will, by 2027, be 50% of what it was in 2008. We are facing an existential threat to the survival of Gaelic broadcasting. We can think about the breadth and depth of the programming. I have programme-making in Skye, including from Chris Young of Young Films, who is known for “The Inbetweeners”. He, for example, produced the excellent “Bannan”. We need to fund such broadcasting appropriately.
Kirsty Blackman
I agree. We do not regret or feel angry at the Welsh language programming that is provided and the support for it. As my right hon. Friend said, we are looking for parity, and the index-linking of funding is important. We also need to recognise that the Scottish Government are already providing significant funding for the Gaelic language and to MG Alba, but there is no parity in terms of the licence fee.
I have a few other things I wish to say. Sadly, the Bill finally says goodbye to teletext; it is the end of teletext as we know it. It has not been in use since 2009, but the Bill finally removes it from legislation.
I also wish to talk about football games and how broadcasting and listing works. Listing is the particular concern. The Secretary of State said that the listing system is being revamped—I am not sure exactly what word she used but that was the direction she intended. However, the listing system itself—the way in which category A and category B listings are chosen—is not being revamped. No change is being made to that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) is unwell and unable to take part in today’s debate, but he has done a huge amount of work on trying to ensure that we can access Scottish football games. It is incredibly important that we can see Scottish football games in Scotland. The Broadcasting Act 1996 says:
“’national interest’ includes interest within England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.”
It does not say, “England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland”; it says “or Northern Ireland”. Given how popular Scotland’s football team is in Scotland, its games should be classed of national importance, especially as we have finally made it to the finals of a tournament. That is wonderful and we want to be able to see those games. It is not fair that viewers in Scotland have to pay to see their national team play, whereas viewers everywhere else in the UK do not have to pay for the same privilege. This issue is important. I note the point that the shadow Secretary of State made about the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s digital rights enabling provision, and I agree that if enabling provisions could be made on digital rights for sports events, that would be an important move.
I have a couple more issues to raise. The first is on-demand services and the inclusion of the 30-day requirement. Unfortunately, the Bill does not make it clear whether that means 30 consecutive days. It is important that the word “consecutive” be added unless precedent in other legislation suggests that “30 days” means 30 consecutive days. Why is news excluded from that provision? The right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) spoke about the economic and cultural importance of our media, but we must consider its democratic importance in ensuring that knowledge is spread. I do not understand why the Minister and the Secretary of State have chosen to exclude news from this 30-day requirement on digital provision. The other thing that could have been clearer is ensuring that some of the provision is accessible. I know that the BBC has worked hard on this, but we are not there yet, as some of the local news that is provided is nearly impossible to find. If I want to watch Aberdeen-specific news, or even Scotland-specific news, it is hard to find it and disentangle it from more national news. Accessibility is required in that regard.
This legislation provides for quite a lot of delegated powers. I have not managed to make my way through all of them, but using the affirmative procedure often strikes the right balance. Using the draft affirmative procedure for a significant amount of the delegated powers in this Bill is important.
I am pleased that we have the Bill. I am concerned about the lack of futureproofing in some of it and about the overcomplication, as some of the definitions are difficult to follow and therefore may not achieve what the Government intend. The cultural sector is incredibly important to the entirety of the UK. It is incredibly important in Scotland, and we certainly will not oppose the Media Bill as it goes forward.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I am delighted to speak in this debate, not least because although the Government have been committed to a media Bill for a long time, it has always been with that well-worn caveat, “when parliamentary time allows”. I am really grateful to both the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), for their kind words about the work of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. I am pleased that one of our first recommendations to be adopted by the Government was to include the Bill in this Session, and I am even more delighted that it has been introduced so quickly following the King’s Speech.
So much has changed since the last piece of major media legislation was passed 20 years ago, in the days when broadcasters decided when their programmes could be watched, TV was almost entirely analogue and only about 4% of the country had any form of access to the internet. But not everything has changed. Public service broadcasters remain at the heart of the UK’s media ecosystem, providing content that enriches our culture, our society and our democracy, and radio remains resilient, despite the environment in which it operates changing beyond recognition. It falls to us to pass legislation that both recognises the immense way in which technology and audience behaviour has changed and preserves the future of our valued PSBs and radio stations for years to come.
I am really pleased to see that the Government have accepted the majority of our Committee’s recommendations following our hard work on the Bill. The changes make the Bill more effective, closing the loophole that allows an unregulated streaming service to buy the rights for a listed sporting event and then stick it behind a pay wall. They make it more workable, improving the drafting of how the must-offer and must-carry carriage deals between PSBs and platforms should be negotiated. They make the Bill more proportionate, exempting news and sport from the requirement for on-demand content to be available for 30 days if it is to count towards a PSB’s remit. They make it more futureproofed, ensuring that the definition of an internet radio service can be amended to reflect changing audience habits or use of technology, and they make the Bill clearer, by ensuring that Channel 4’s sustainability duty is compatible with its existing statutory obligations.
There remain a few areas where the Bill will benefit from further discussion as it progresses, and I would like to pick up on a few of those today. The first is the issue of genres, which some Members have talked about. Ensuring prominence for our public service broadcasters is central to the Bill, but it is the obligation on them to provide high-quality and diverse programming that enables us to make the argument for prominence so incontrovertibly.
The changes to the public service broadcasting remit are significant. Other than news and current affairs, the Bill will remove the genres in the Communications Act 2003—for example, religious and arts programming, or children’s programming; I will not be drawn into the trap of discussing my favourite, because my dad may well be watching the debate—and replace them with an obligation to provide programming that reflects the lives and concerns of the UK’s different communities and cultural interests and traditions. That simplifies the remit of PSBs and the enforcement of it for Ofcom, but at what cost?
In our inquiry, the Committee found that these changes have received far less attention than other aspects of the Bill. Funnily enough, it was something that the PSBs themselves did not want to linger on in their evidence to us, but that is all the more reason why we need to consider whether these changes are the right ones. It is true that much of what people regard as public service content is now provided by a wide range of providers beyond PSBs and sometimes for free—for example, on Sky Arts—but not all genres are served in that way, and we need to be sure that the Bill gets the balance right.
With regard to prominence, obligations on our PSBs must be fairly balanced with the benefits that they are going to see. The harder it is to find public service broadcasting content, the less likely that content is to be watched, so PSBs need prominence on smart TVs and streaming sticks. That cannot come soon enough, but those who followed our inquiry will know that there was a debate among stakeholders as to whether we keep the existing descriptor for electronic programming guides that PSBs’ prominence should be “appropriate”, or change it to “significant”. That sounds like a really technical argument, but in the advanced user interfaces of today, what prominence looks like varies considerably from device to device and from platform to platform, so it is really important. What is considered appropriate prominence is far more open to interpretation than before, which is why we supported changing “appropriate” to “significant”. That was one of the few recommendations we made that the Government did not accept. Ultimately, what really matters is ensuring that public service content is always carried and is always easy to find, so that is what we need to work through as the Bill progresses.
We also need to consider whether the Bill’s “must carry” obligations on platforms need aligning with the “must offer” obligations in the BBC’s charter and framework agreement. Are we aiming for a level playing field between platforms and all our PSBs, or only the commercial ones? The House needs to explore that question, as well as whether the Government should extend the new prominence regime to local TV services. Those services are given prominence on electronic programme guides, on either channel 7 or channel 8, but the Bill does not give them prominence on smart TVs. We need to decide whether that is the right direction.
There are also places where I would be grateful if our Ministers provided more detail. Our Committee recommended that the new video-on-demand code should apply to all platforms in the same way that the broadcasting code applies to all broadcasters. However, the Government intend to apply that code only to platforms with a large UK audience. I recognise the Government’s argument that the legislation must be proportionate: clearly, applying the code to small, niche services such as a football team’s on-demand service could unfairly and unnecessarily penalise them, with no overall audience protection. However, we need more indication from the Government of the types of services they have in mind. The Minister will probably say that no decision has been made, but Ministers will have already considered this issue as they developed the Bill and responded to the Select Committee’s report, so I hope he will be able to say a bit more about what services he envisages being in scope.
We also need a bit more clarity on a late addition to the Bill: the introduction of a new special clause for multi-sport events that was not in the draft Bill. That clause would apply to four group A events: the summer Olympics and Paralympics and the winter Olympics and Paralympics. Currently, Ofcom consent is not required when there are genuine partnerships—that is, full and comprehensive rights on both sides of the partnership—but the Bill will change that, with each partner only entitled to “adequate live coverage”. This morning, the Select Committee had a session on women’s sport and met broadcasters, including the BBC’s director of sport, Barbara Slater. She raised real concerns about the impact of that clause, especially without any detail of what “adequate” means. If we are to avoid PSB coverage of those listed events being undermined by the Bill, we need clarity. Why did Ministers add that clause? What is wrong with the current rules? We need to make sure that we protect those moments of national importance, and that the Bill does not lead to any unintended consequences.
Turning to radio, there are places where we could look again at what is covered by the legislation. As Members have already heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), on-demand content from licensed radio stations is not covered by the Bill, nor are any online-only stations, yet some 10 million adults listen to podcasts every week and some of our biggest broadcasters have online-only stations. We all know how incredibly important radio is—it is the most trusted medium in the UK—and, in particular, how important local radio is. More than anything, the public reaction to the BBC’s changes to local radio brings that home. Sharing content across large areas risks undermining the sense of localness that has, until now, made BBC local radio really distinct. The measures to protect radio are some of the most important parts of the Bill, and we need to reflect on whether they go far enough.
Ultimately, of course, there is only one question to ask of any piece of media legislation: does it deliver for its audiences? First, the Bill is critical to the sustainability of our PSBs. While those broadcasters do not always get everything right, they provide huge value for audiences: they are the broadcasters who entertain us, who teach us, and who show us our national sporting triumphs—and, quite often, our defeats. Secondly, the Bill is critical if viewers are to be confident that all TV-like content, whether broadcast or on demand, will be subject to the same or similar standards. Thirdly, this Bill is critical to the future of radio, where stations are increasingly dependent on online platforms for access to listeners. This Bill seeks to ensure that radio remains the strong, trusted medium that it is today. Yes, there is more discussion to be had on the exact contents of the Bill, but it does deliver for audiences, which is why I am so pleased to hear that it has support from across the House and why I want to see it come into law as soon as possible.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I want to start by expressing my party’s broad support for this Bill, which is timely. What a change we have seen since 2003 when the Communications Act was passed: it is a massive change. The new legislation is crucial for public sector broadcasters, and I therefore believe that time is of the essence. However, I am treating this debate as a bit like a tutorial in which we will have an interesting exchange of ideas. On behalf of my party, I will reserve our opinions—in the light of certain reservations that I will express—and we shall be abstaining on the Bill tonight. That does not in any way indicate that we do not support the thrust of the Bill, and I think that needs to be understood.
The first concern I would air is the removal of some regulations about local broadcasting. We have heard from all around the Chamber the importance of local broadcasting, including what it means in platforming voices and stories from across the nations and regions, not least the highlands, where I come from. I think this is a good point at which to unreservedly add my support to my colleagues—one across the Minch, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil); another to the south of me, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford); and the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman)—in saying that it is crucially important that we get it right with regard to Gaelic. As I said in an intervention, it saddens me to say this, but the situation of the language is precarious and we need to do everything possible to secure its future.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree that there should be some sort of legislative underpinning and support for Gaelic broadcasting. Indeed, BBC Alba has asked for that and pointed that out.
Jamie Stone
Yes, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct.
Furthermore, as we know, local radio—and, as was expressed by the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), who is no longer with us, the same is true of local television—is absolutely fundamental to the proper functioning of local democracy. I know this only too well, and in some ways I regret it. Let me give Members, for their lighter amusement, a cautionary tale. When I was first elected to be a member of Ross and Cromarty District Council a long time ago—I was once upon a time the youngest member of the council—my younger brother was a broadcaster on Moray Firth Radio, our local radio station, which is still alive and well today. He thought it would be kind to me to put me on his chat show on a Saturday morning called “The Chipboard Table” just days after I was first elected. He sat me down—this was live—and he said, “Jamie, last night we had a dram together, and you told me that you felt your fellow councillors were quite creative in the way they completed their expenses.” This led to an indifferent start to a career in local government, but that is one of the scars I bear. Luckily, it was a long time ago. For accountability and throwing a light on local democracy, local radio is absolutely crucial, and notwithstanding my experience, I would not have it any other way.
On the issue of quotas, the removal of Ofcom’s responsibility to monitor the delivery of content in education, science and culture may risk content in these areas declining. That would concern me because, as was eloquently expressed by the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), the soft power this country exerts is about being British, but it also about reflecting the different facets of our nation that English-speaking countries find absolutely fascinating. As the Bill progresses, I will be looking to ensure that Ofcom retains a statutory requirement to measure the output of each of these genres—language, culture or whatever—against, let us say for now, the benchmark of what we have at the moment. I do not wish to see any decline from that whatsoever.
On accessibility, when it comes to linear television, there is a requirement for 90% of programmes to be provided with subtitles, as we know. It is right that there should be greater access to those things. Let me give the House another personal example. On a Sunday evening, a cousin of mine who is a little older than me comes and has a meal with my wife and I, and she watches the television. She is a great friend and much loved. She is also pretty deaf, and for some television programmes we can get the subtitles up, but for others we cannot. Perhaps I am not very intelligent with IT, but by gosh we’ve tried, and it is hugely frustrating that she cannot see the words that are being said. The same applies to people with visual impairment—we are talking about signing and other ways of helping. The Liberal Democrat party will look to require that at least 80% of on-demand TV content be subtitled, with 10% audio described and 5% signed. That is our position at this stage.
While I find it tricky to find the subtitles, another issue is also tricky to find. One of the most important aspects of the Bill is the call for public service broadcaster prominence, ensuring that the likes of BBC, Channel 4 and ITV are not only easy to find on any smart TV, but are also given due prominence. This is the existential issue for our public service broadcasters, and the question of how appropriate prominence will be defined is vital. The Liberal Democrats would like the current call for “appropriate” prominence be strengthened to “significant” prominence, and I believe we will be tabling amendments to see whether we can achieve that.
Kirsty Blackman
The hon. Member is talking about a range of different issues, which highlight the fact that there are a lot of disparate concerns about the Bill. Does he share my concern that the draft programme motion does not include taking oral evidence for the Bill, and does he understand why the Government have done that?
Jamie Stone
I believe that is a wise point, and we would be wise to heed it.
When it comes to Channel 4, I believe I am not alone in having concerns about plans to relax the publisher-broadcaster status, and about the potential risk that that poses to the unique contribution that the channel makes to the diversity and sustainability of the independent production sector across the nations and regions. Again, that takes me back to my earlier point about the sheer diversity of the product being part of our soft power, which is important to this country. However, there is a caveat. With the increased independent production quota and Channel 4’s prediction that any changes will take at least five years to launch, that fundamental change might not lead to any market shock in the short term. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and we shall see.
Finally, let me turn to what is perhaps a core debating point today. Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 requires new outlets to pay the costs—we know what that is all about. The Liberal Democrats stand firmly against that charge. The 2013 Bill followed the Leveson inquiry and the phone hacking scandal, and the proposed change will put at risk the balance between free speech and public safeguarding, all the while favouring news publishers. One could say that that is a standard political stance in this debate, and perhaps Conservative Members would take a different view. However, let us consider one final point, which is important in terms of the notion of British justice. This change would mean that anyone without substantial financial resources or deep pockets that can match the might of the newspapers would find it impossible to pursue legitimate grievances through the legal system. We need to think about that very deeply. What can the small man possibly do against the publishing giants? That is hugely important and I think there is a warning here. With that I will conclude my remarks. I sincerely hope that my career in this place will not include any more gaffes on live radio, but you can never tell, Madam Deputy Speaker, least of all from a highland Member of Parliament.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
A number of hon. Members have mentioned how long it has been since the last major piece of media legislation, but it is worth reflecting on that period of change and what it means. When the Communications Act 2003 was passed more than 20 years ago, Amazon was a relatively small online retailer selling music, books and video games, Netflix delivered videos and DVDs by mail order for people to watch at home, and YouTube did not exist. If we had asked someone then what a smart device was, they would probably have guessed that it was a scientific calculator. There were no smart devices, and the iPhone was still some years away from existing.
The idea that every one of us would carry in our pockets a device allowing us to watch live television whenever we like would not have been envisaged, or people would have thought that to be far off. That is significant not just because technology changes the media landscape but because it has a massive impact on viewing habits. That in many ways is the real challenge faced by the public service broadcasters today. The Bill is a hugely welcome step towards addressing some of those needs, but there will continue to be an ongoing challenge.
All Ofcom data is clear that, with the exception of the pandemic period when everyone watched a lot more television, public service broadcasting is declining. The minutes people spend each day watching public service broadcasting are declining year on year. Broadcasters face ongoing pressure not just from that audience decline but from rising costs through inflation for television production, which are running much faster than the consumer prices index. That puts an inevitable squeeze on budgets.
Public broadcasters that have the luxury of making more of their own programmes while raising money through subscriptions and other things are better placed to deal with that audience change. Nevertheless, it is there. The biggest challenge that the BBC faces is not about it not making brilliant programmes, not having fantastic writers or not nurturing brilliant talent; it is that people are voluntarily declining to pay the licence fee simply because they feel their needs in gathering news or watching fantastic programming can be met elsewhere.
The challenge that Channel 4 has faced is that, without the ability to invest in programmes from which it can make money, it relies solely on advertiser revenue, and that revenue is under challenge all the time, so it is much harder for it to be sustainable and to plan for the future. I welcome the Government’s introduction of measures in the Bill to change Channel 4’s remit. I understand the concerns raised by companies in the independent production sector, but I think they would recognise that that sector is totally different from when Channel 4 launched. At that time, a lot more BBC and ITV production was done in-house and there were no other routes to television.
Channel 4 created an opportunity for independent production companies to launch businesses, make programmes and gain an audience that otherwise would not have existed. Now, there are huge opportunities for independent producers. While Channel 4 is an important part of that ecosystem, it is by no means the only one, so the best thing we can do for the independent sector is ensure that Channel 4 is in as robust health as possible so that it can commission more, because 65% or 70% of a bigger TV company is worth a lot more than 100% of a very small one, or one that is struggling to continue to exist.
Those are the ongoing challenges that the PSBs will face, and the fight for attention will only continue. People now are more distracted not only by video-on-demand services but by video gaming and other forms of audio-visual entertainment. That is the backdrop against which the Bill is being introduced.
The question of the degree of PSB prominence on connected devices—modern televisions that are internet-connected and totally integrated with people’s on-demand viewing habits—is incredibly important. Whether that level of prominence is “significant” or “appropriate” is an important debate. Is it enough simply to have the television schedule there on the device, with that schedule the live schedule ranked in order on the electronic programming guide as we are used to seeing it? How easy is that to find? Will people be constantly shifting through menus for on-demand services, be those Netflix, Amazon, Sky programming or whatever, before they find the television guide?
We see in Ofcom’s yearly audience analysis data from its media nations report that those under the age of 40 do not really regard television as a live product any more, unless they are watching the news or live sport; it is an on-demand product. If we asked student audiences what they thought of the TV schedule, they would find the idea of going home, turning on a television, pressing the No. 3 button and watching live what had been preselected for them, in a selected order, completely anathema. Younger audiences do not expect television to be a live product. They do not expect to go to the television guide to find what they want. In fact, audience analysis shows that, increasingly, when people turn the television on, the first thing they do is turn to an on-demand service like Netflix to browse what is there—that is their primary act, rather than going to a channel.
Whether it is easy to find the schedule and see what is being shown will be key to the debate on prominence. Otherwise, the PSBs will continue to find it hard to have a share of voice and be noticed in an environment where people are increasingly distracted by what they want to see. That experience itself is fractured, as a consequence of the way that on-demand services are designed. They are tailored to the user, so everyone will see a different screen when they turn them on. When everyone turns to Netflix, they see something different. They even see different tiles advertising the same programmes, tailored based on their past viewing habits. That is great for the consumer; it makes it much easier to navigate the services and find what they are looking for, but it makes it much harder for them to be challenged and surprised.
What is the value and role of original British content, telling unique stories of people on these islands? How easy will that be to find if people do not know to look for it and have not viewed it before? Those are the sorts of questions that Ofcom will have to consider. The Bill gives Ofcom the power to issue guidance, but it is important that here in this House we are on top of what Ofcom analyses and recommends, and that we feel that whatever the final wording of the Bill, it ensures that PSBs get a fair share of voice.
Kirsty Blackman
I did not even think about the TV schedule as something that people look at. I never look at a TV schedule. I do not know if my Fire Stick or my PlayStation has a TV schedule. On significant prominence, I was picturing the BBC iPlayer app being at the top of the apps list. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Ofcom should look at both those things: how it appears on the screen and where the public service broadcasters are in any live schedule?
Damian Collins
The hon. Lady makes an important point. It should be easier to find through app stores. Although they are not directly in scope of the legislation because they are not broadcast formats in their own right, that question should be asked—is it easy to find? It should be easy to find on a connected device when it is turned on, and it should be easy to locate the apps.
Ofcom also has to consider whether the business model that underpins connected devices is fair to public service broadcasters. There is no doubt that the business model for Amazon and Google is to try to create a connected device space where all the entertainment exists and is tailored to each person. They also want to build the ad tech into that, so that they are the principal beneficiaries of the ad revenue, by monetising the placement of that content as well and diverting it away from broadcasters who have traditionally sold audiences to make money. That is the underlying problem that public service broadcasting faces today. The sale of audiences to generate advertising revenue to invest in programmes—the model that has fuelled independent public broadcasting for 50 years—is not broken, but it does not work in the way it used to; it is much more diffuse.
The revenue challenges that come from that are extremely real. That is why, on Channel 4, although I am pleased to see the Government’s changes to the remit, we need to keep a watching brief to see whether they go far enough. We have not gone as far as Channel 4 asked to go in its counter-offer to privatisation, which was the ability to go to the markets to raise money from private investors to create a programming fund that would invest £1 billion over two years in new programming. If we simply allow Channel 4 to acquire a stake in the making of programmes that it will broadcast, which will make revenue in the future, will that be enough now to meet the challenges that it will face? Given the ongoing pressures this year on declining ad revenue for TV broadcasting, we need to make sure that that will be enough. We should not assume that the measures in the Bill, which are welcome, will be the last word on that. There may be more challenges to come.
I would like to add two further points. It is right that we try to create more parity between the regulation of on-demand online services and broadcast television. If a viewer turns on their connected TV device, as far as they are concerned Netflix is as much television as the BBC, and there should be some parity in the way the platforms are regulated, the obligations they have to their users and the notifications they give about the suitability of the content. That should apply to advertising too. Often the debate we have is around advertising that targets children, but children are not watching live television; they are watching it on demand. The danger at the moment is that we have a highly regulated live broadcast television environment, but an almost completely unregulated online one. We should be far more worried about the ad rules that apply on YouTube than those on ITV, because that is where the children are. It is vital that the work on the Government’s online advertising review is completed at pace. The project has been worked on for a number of years. There needs to be proper enforceability of the advertising codes that have stood us in good stead in the broadcast world, but do not yet work in the same way online.
Finally, on media ownership and media freedom, which the Secretary of State mentioned in her opening remarks, we should give some consideration—maybe the Bill is not the right place—to the ownership of UK news companies and news assets, particularly if they are acquired by organisations based in jurisdictions overseas where maybe the regard for press freedom is not the same as it is in the UK. The Bill does not address that concern. If we have an ongoing concern about a vibrant news media landscape, there should be some concern about the companies that own media organisations—where they are based, what their interests are and what interest they have in the way the news is reported here. We do not want to see the press regulated in any way—we want to avoid that and in many ways the measures in the Bill are a nod to that as well—but we want certainty about safeguarding media freedom in the future.
Andy Carter
My hon. Friend makes a very interesting point about news media. What does he think about the ownership of public service broadcasters? Should there be legislation in place to consider who is allowed to own a public service broadcaster? For example, ITV could be bought and sold tomorrow on the stock exchange to somebody in a different country who has very different values and views on what content might be put out on ITV. Should that be in scope as well?
Damian Collins
My hon. Friend makes a very interesting point. Whether it be ITV or a newspaper such as The Daily Telegraph, which is currently up for sale, what is the motivation of someone acquiring them? We might assume they would not seek to censor what was going on, but would they have a different view on creative content, news, the stories they want to tell and what obligations exist for them? That is not something we have had to consider before, but in a market where such media assets are attractive to global investors, we should not be unconcerned about the motivations of investors who might buy those companies.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
Mòran taing, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this debate.
There has been much discussion about the impact of the Bill on Gaelic broadcasting and it is that that I would like to reflect on today. I think it is fair to say that in decades gone by—50 or 60 years ago—there was largely indifference to the Gaelic language right across the political divide. That, I am glad to say, has changed. Let me state that the Gaelic language belongs to absolutely everyone and it is right that we continue to look at the support we can give to the language on that cross-party basis. It is important that we retain that consensus. The reason I mention 50 or 60 years ago is because in the 1970s some fundamental changes took place. In some respects, there was a renaissance for the language. We had the establishment of the Gaelic college in Skye—we have just celebrated its 50th anniversary—and there was everything that happened in a wider sense in music. There was the arrival, again on the island of Skye, of the rock bank Runrig, which gave a voice to young people in the language. We think, of course, about what the West Highland Free Press did.
My friend the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) reflected on the diminishing numbers of Gaelic speakers in his constituency, but it is important that we retain a sense of perspective. There are some very strong signs about not just the durability but the growth of the language. I can think specifically about Gaelic education. In my own constituency, I have a number of Gaelic primary schools, most recently in Portree. I am delighted that the number of children going to the Gaelic school in Portree is way in excess of the number going to the English language school. There are some very strong and encouraging signs.
In the light of all of that, what we do and in particular what we do in relation to the Media Bill is important. It is worth reflecting that the Government have in the past said some very encouraging things about recognising the importance of the Gaelic language.
According to a White Paper published on 28 April 2022,
“The Government recognises the hugely valuable contribution that MG Alba makes to the lives and wellbeing of Gaelic speakers across Scotland and the UK, including through its unique partnership with the BBC in the provision of BBC ALBA. Such a partnership must ensure high quality, diverse Gaelic language content continues to be readily available so that Gaelic culture is protected in the years to come. We also recognise that certainty of future funding is important for MG ALBA being able to deliver for Gaelic speakers.”
I endorse those words, and I make an appeal to the Minister: that protection of Gaelic really must be included in the Bill, so that we can then have the necessary discussion about the responsibilities we all have to ensure that there is appropriate support for the language.
We have heard a great deal today about remote and rural areas, and I think of the contribution that is made by Gaelic broadcasting in such areas. I think of the production facilities in Inverness, Stornoway and, indeed, Portree in my constituency, associated with the Gaelic college. We are home to some film production activities—I referred earlier to Chris Young, who produced “The Inbetweeners”—and I think of some of the Gaelic drama that has been produced, such as “Bannan”. We often hear about programmes in the UK being sold internationally, and this Gaelic drama has been sold internationally, although admittedly on a shoestring. I have always been overwhelmed when I have had the opportunity to be on site with the 70 or 80 people producing that masterpiece of Gaelic drama.
All of that shows what we are capable of doing throughout these islands, and it shows the ability of people to contribute Gaelic content, but of course it has to be funded. As I mentioned earlier, we face a cataclysmic challenge because of the real-terms decline in funding for MG Alba ever since its foundation in 2008. We are at a crisis point. I welcome the funding that has gone into S4C, but my goodness, if we could get even a fraction of that funding, what a difference it would make. Let us think about not just the social and cultural contribution, but the economic contribution generated by the investment that we have had. MG Alba sustains about 340 full-time jobs, half of which are in the highlands and islands, and with its annual funding of £13 million, it produces gross value added of more than £17 million. We are talking about a return of £1.34 for every £1 of investment. Just think how it would be if we could increase that, and see more of that economic contribution in our remote and rural areas!
I appeal to the good sense of the Minister, because I know that he has much good sense. I appeal to him to respond positively when he winds up the debate. Let us come together in this Chamber and collectively accept our responsibilities for Gaelic, as we have for other languages. Let us make sure that this station—for MG Alba is a station—can flourish, and that BBC Radio nan Gàidheal can flourish. Again, mòran taing, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this Second Reading debate on a Bill that comes at a crucial time for our creative industries and broadcasters. Several broadcasters are already applying for the 10-year licences, and we need to have a settled approach to how they can be granted. I should refer the House to my entry in the transparency register, as a former Minister, and to the interests that I have declared in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), who was in the Chair earlier, was the director of BBC children’s television in the 1970s. A number of children’s programmes have already been mentioned, but, for what it is worth, my favourites were “Paddington”, “Pipkins” and “Mr Benn”. It has often been said by the person who created “Mr Benn” that children’s television had to attract not only older children but adults, who would often sit watching it alongside the children. It has sparked many a career, including the careers of Members of the other House but also those of some of the greatest broadcasters of today.
The Media Bill reflects the changes in technology and in how people consume broadcasting in a variety of ways. A lot more is consumed on the go or on demand, and I regret that there are fewer community moments—water cooler moments, as they used to be called—but broadcasting still plays a vital role in shaping the conversation, through the fun and joy that people have in watching, as well as in exposing some of the interesting challenges we face.
In this broader landscape and market, I welcome the global online platforms. They have helped the viewer and the creative industries, but they have also brought a risk for our public service broadcasters, particularly our commercial public service broadcasters, who have responsibilities that those other organisations simply do not have. It is important, if those broadcasters are to be viable and sustainable, that we recognise the context in which those platforms land.
There has been at least one call from the shadow Secretary of State for the use of Henry VIII powers, and that is because we need to be flexible. The last time we had similar legislation was in 2003. By the time the Bill goes through, we will need to have that flexibility built in—I hope it goes through at pace, because it really matters to our broadcasters and the industry that it does. As my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) said, there are certain areas in which Channel 4 would have liked the flexibility to go slightly further. Let us build that flexibility in now and, rather than seeing Henry VIII powers as something bad, look at what they can be used for. I must admit that in my role as a Minister, I found that one of the most flexible pieces of legislation was the Environmental Protection Act 1990. It was by having Henry VIII powers that we were able to keep pace with the challenges we faced, and we should welcome the opportunity to add such powers to this Bill.
I thank the Members of both Houses who performed the pre-legislative scrutiny. That has made it a stronger Bill, and it is important that the Government have largely listened. That shows maturity, and it is why I think the Bill will be a success. I echo Members’ comments about ensuring that we use the word “significant” and not just “appropriate” in proposed new sections 362AM and 362AO to the Communications Act 2003, because we need to give clarity and send a firm message to Ofcom. At the end of the day, Ofcom is an independent regulator. It does not represent people right across the country, and it is important that Parliament has a voice in pushing or promoting that.
The Select Committee referred in its report to the use of negative statutory instruments by the Government. I ask the Government to think again slightly. Having experienced a variety of legislation, I know that the role of negative SIs is well established and that they represent about 80% of the legislation that we make. They are used to update minor points. However, it is not necessary to leave such elements to Ofcom or to take these things to court when Parliament can assert that role.
I am really pleased about the change in Government policy that has led to the parts of the Bill that relate to Channel 4. It was under Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative Government in 1982 that Channel 4 was created as a way to have a public sector broadcaster that was still state owned but that generated all its revenue privately rather than through the licence fee, and what a job it has done. S4C was, of course, created on the same day. I very much welcome the special status that Channel 4 will continue to have, as well as the new powers that give it the freedom and flexibility to produce. I also welcome the commitments still being made to the independent sector, and I know that Channel 4 will not suddenly rush to bring everything in-house—far from it. Why would it, when the way it has done things so far has been so successful? I pay particular tribute to its exceptional chief executive, Alex Mahon, who has been a real champion for Channel 4 and the creative industries. Long may she flourish.
Turning to the excellent ITV, I suggest that it really needs a level playing field and this kind of opportunity, particularly when it comes to global platforms. The extra burdens put on our public service broadcasters are important to the diversity of the TV that we enjoy, and ITV continues to go from strength to strength. Just like Channel 4, it has made transformations in its filming. Channel 4’s portrayal of the Paralympics in 2012 has been recognised around the world as a real game changer by the Paralympic movement. Similarly, ITV broadcasts brave coverage of the news and is spending a lot more money on going to some of the most challenging parts of the world. Other broadcasters including Sky have done similar things. When we give Ofcom these powers, we must send a strong message about the robust application and enforcement of prominence for PSBs on global online platforms, on terms that enable them to thrive and deliver their remit.
Much has been said about local radio, and a significant number of local radio stations have been created in Suffolk Coastal following the significant reduction in BBC Suffolk’s very local content. Although I regret that reduction, it has opened up an opportunity for many more broadcasters. I welcome the provisions in the Bill to make it easier for local radio stations to broadcast and thrive.
On part 7, there is a lesson for all of us in the light of the Leveson inquiry that a knee-jerk reaction to a prominent public inquiry is not necessarily the best way to generate new legislation. I can see why people were so upset, and continue to be upset, when the media seem to have the freedom to trash people’s lives and reputations, but it was not the right knee-jerk reaction. It is good that we never commenced section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 and are now repealing it. I would be very concerned if the repeal led to a rush of newspapers suddenly departing from the Independent Press Standards Organisation or Impress. I know that some newspapers have chosen not to use either, but we should not actively encourage that choice through the Bill.
This is a good Bill, and I hope the House will let the Government work at pace. The Bill is important for the commercial viability and sustainability of PSBs, none of which has the benefit of the licence fee, which means that the BBC does not particularly need to work to generate income. I should say that I worked at the BBC for six to nine months before becoming a Member of Parliament, and it has a very special place in UK life, but it is important that we have a wide range of PSBs. The Bill will help to keep PSBs sustainable for the future.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I welcome this debate, and I strongly welcome the departure from the idea of selling off and privatising Channel 4. It has been a very good channel that continues to do a lot of innovative things. That it can develop its own content can only be a good thing, as it shows the importance of public service broadcasting.
We should reflect that the Bill is going in the direction of proper regulation of the media, while recognising the value and importance of public service broadcasting. We should compare that with the United States, which, since the second world war, has systematically defunded public service broadcasting and has ended up with news values essentially dominated by Fox News and nothing else. We should value the principle of public service broadcasting.
I am particularly pleased that Gaelic and Welsh-language stations are not only protected but supported by the Bill, as they have greatly increased the speaking of Gaelic and Welsh, enhancing and developing the culture of both Scotland and Wales.
Many of us often criticise journalists, but we very much value the idea of a free press and a free media, which we do not always appear to have. We should think a little more about the multiple ownership of different media outlets across TV, newspapers, radio and so on.
The Bill is also about trying to keep up with changing technology and a changing media landscape. There was a time when radio was one thing, television was another, social media had not been invented and newspapers were completely separate from all of them. All of those are now essentially merged into one, in some way or another: radio interviews are televised and newspaper articles appear on websites, often with videos. That is not a bad thing—it is often a good thing—but there is a universality to the media, and many people get their information from online sources.
However, we should be slightly cautious because we, in this Chamber, are all media obsessives, I suppose. We probably read newspapers and listen to current affairs programmes more than anybody else in our society, so it is easy to forget that a significant proportion of the population does not watch very much television, has no access to smart phones, does not know how to use a computer and is completely lost in a digital divide. Those people are increasingly isolated and left behind. The Bill does not pretend to give an answer to that. I am not sure there is a simple answer, but we should recognise that a growing proportion of the population—not huge, but significant—often loses out on all kinds of information as a result.
I will briefly address the question of news values. I believe there is a high degree of bias in the way that a lot of news is reported in our media, notably international reporting on global affairs. If something happens in the USA, Europe or whatever war is being followed at that time, be it the horrors of Gaza or Ukraine, that is news, but if something happens in much of Africa, Latin America or south Asia, it is simply not reported at all. The huge conflict going on in the Democratic Republic of Congo receives almost zero coverage in any of our written or broadcast media. The problems of, say, indigenous communities in Ecuador receive no coverage either.
We need to think about how we can encourage all our media to have a more global view when they report globally. The BBC has cut back on its global coverage significantly. It cannot afford to have journalists all around the world, so it puts them in the best known places—Brussels, Washington and so on—and has cut back on many other places. The only global channel that currently tries to report on the whole world is al-Jazeera, which is funded entirely by the Qatar Government and royal family. We need diversity in broadcasting as well as in the way in which the news is chosen. That applies to many other issues as well, including the reporting of environmental affairs and debates about global warming.
Commercial media is driven by the need to make money to survive, so it has no great incentive to do anything other than entertainment, because that is what brings in the audience and advertising. It does not necessarily provide information and education for the population. I realise Ofcom has to do a difficult balancing act, but we should be aware that the majority of the population no longer looks at the two alternatives most of us in the Chamber grew up with—the BBC and ITV—but at a whole plethora of different news outlets. Therefore, those people have a wide variety of news issues thrown at them.
A number of colleagues have raised issues about local journalism and local papers, which also appear heavily online. I once worked in a genuinely local paper—it was printed on the same site where we wrote the stories and it was part of the community. It then became part of a bigger group, then another bigger group and then an even bigger group. Local papers across the country are actually not local at all. They are owned by a media group in a distant place and, if they are lucky, there are one or two journalists in the town in question and they live largely by press releases.
My friend, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), quite rightly commended the West Highland Free Press for its work. I remember that it was set up because of a lack of local reporting. There was a very serious determination by those who set it up to ensure that it was a genuinely independent paper that covered a huge part of Scotland and that was able to build community strengths and links with it, and I think that the paper has been very successful in doing that.
A long distance away and in a completely different kind of community, the Camden New Journal group, which also includes the Islington Tribune and other enterprises, is, again, a wholly independent group set up by the journalists who worked on the paper when the previous owners essentially walked away from it. It is independent, it is local, and it is co-operatively run. It is also very, very successful, because it concentrates completely on the news and stories within the local community and tries to bring them forward.
Having newspapers and radio stations that cover all languages is also very important. We have talked about Scotland and Wales, but there is also a plethora of communities in this country who want to hear stuff in their own language. I remember speaking in this House, probably from this very spot, in the 1980s, trying to defend London Greek Radio, which was set up as an independent Greek-speaking radio station. It was raided 74 times by the Post Office and all its broadcasting equipment was taken away—goodness knows what happened to the 74 items of broadcasting equipment. Eventually the station was given a licence, and it is now a very successful Greek language radio station. There are many other language radio stations all across the country, which is important. It is important for people growing up in bilingual communities to be able to listen to things in their own language, and for young people to feel that sense of belonging to the Greek, to the Turkish, to the Somali or to any other community, as well as being able to communicate in English. That to me is the great value of local radio stations.
My final point is about social media. When I go to meetings, I often ask people how many of them ever buy a newspaper. If the audience has nobody in it over the age of 50, no hand goes up. Younger people simply do not buy newspapers at all—they have no relationship with them. They rely completely on social media for their news, information and ideas. We all access social media. We are all driven in social media by various algorithms, some of which are owned by people far away, who have patented those algorithms. They follow us, they follow our interests and they decide what news we ought to have. It is hardly a free media when we are directed to the news that somebody wants us to hear. It is not simple. It is not simple to regulate on what algorithms do, but we should be extremely well aware of it.
We should also be aware that it is possible to set up a radio station—unless I am wrong about this Bill—that is purely online. There is no regulation of it whatsoever, other than the basics of libel law and things such as that. That is an area that will grow. It is an area that is increasing, and some of the online radio stations have very large audiences indeed. Some of them are very good, and some of them less so, but we must be aware of that and the need in the longer term for further regulation and control of the behaviour of algorithms and how they can influence opinion—politically, socially and commercially—and everything else in our lives.
We should just take a moment to think of the bravery of many journalists around the world, including those who have been killed in Gaza over the past few weeks; those who are in prison in Egypt, in Russia and in a number of other countries; and those who risk everything in order to try to get the news out. They need support and protection in every way possible.
I would also like to put it on record that we should reflect quite seriously on the situation facing one of the world’s best-known investigative journalists—that of Julian Assange, who has now spent almost five years in a maximum security prison for revealing uncomfortable truths about Iraq and other places. Journalism at its best tells us the truth. At its worst, it is propaganda for somebody else and somebody very, very powerful.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
I agree with some of the comments of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), in particular his comments about the bravery of journalists covering conflict around the world today.
It is very doubtful that there will be a Division on the Bill this evening. We have had something of a love-in, with contributions from all parties saying that they support the Bill. I do not want to shatter that consensus, but I am going to do so. Although it is clear that the Opposition are not going to divide the House on Second Reading, I must say to them that, had they chosen to do that, I would have supported them. I would have done so purely because of the strength of my feelings about clause 50, which repeals section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. I believe consistency in this place matters, even though it might sometimes be elusive. The truth is that section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act was part of a Conservative-drafted compromise following the Leveson inquiry. It was a compromise in which I had a hand, and I am not about to vote against it, today or at any other point.
The reason I supported the thrust of the Leveson proposals at the time was not despite my being a Conservative, but because I am a Conservative, and true Conservatives believe in accountability. It is true Conservatives who, throughout history, have faced down powerful vested interests and it is true Conservatives who will always look out for the underdog, whatever the consequences might be. The Leveson inquiry followed decades of failure on the part of the press to engage seriously with self-regulation, and the craven failure of this House over 70 years to act on the findings of no fewer than seven inquiries and Royal Commissions set up during that time.
It is often the case that we never quite know when something that is known to be a problem will become a big story—a running story, as we call it in the media. It was the hacking of the phone of Milly Dowler, the murdered schoolgirl, that made this House decide to act. Therefore it was a Conservative Prime Minister at the time who condemned the Press Complaints Commission as wholly ineffective. It was a Conservative Prime Minister who set up the inquiry. It was a Conservative Prime Minister who chose Lord Justice Leveson to lead that inquiry—in part because Lord Justice Leveson was recognised as somebody who respected the press and believed passionately in the freedom of the press, and could therefore be relied upon to come up with a sensible set of proposals.
It was a Conservative Prime Minister who wrote the terms of reference of the Leveson inquiry and a Conservative Prime Minister who said that that inquiry should make policy recommendations to the Government. When that report came back, it was a Conservative Prime Minister who stated on the Floor of this House that we could not just say, “Let’s have one last chance saloon for the press again.”, because we had done that. When that report landed—all 1,800 pages, in four volumes—my noble Friend Lord Cameron, then Prime Minister, asked Oliver Letwin to work out a way to implement the proposals of the Leveson inquiry.
There followed a series of compromises to accommodate some of the concerns of the press. First, while Lord Leveson had recommended that there should be a statutory body, preferably Ofcom, that would act as the recognition body, that was seen to be problematic by the press. So Oliver Letwin came up with the rather ingenious idea of establishing a Royal Charter for the self-regulation of the press. The press then raised concerns that a future Government might be able unilaterally to change the terms of that charter simply by bringing forward Orders in Council. We accepted that that was a very fair concern. Paradoxically, the press then asked whether Parliament could safeguard the integrity of the Royal Charter by ensuring that it could be amended or removed only if there were a super-majority of both Houses of Parliament and, in addition to that, a super-majority in the Scottish Parliament.
Finally, there was a lot of discussion about the editors’ code and who should hold the pen. The media felt that existing editors should always hold the pen on the editors’ code, which was contrary to what Lord Leveson had suggested. Again, however, to carry the press with us—as it had said that it would work with us if we made the concessions that it wanted—we made that final concession to ensure that the editors’ code would always be written by the newspaper industry, not by any other independent body.
At various stages during those multiple concessions, Oliver Letwin asked me whether I would help to broach conversations with the Opposition parties with a view to forming a cross-party consensus on the matter, and I did so in good faith. At this point, I pay particular tribute to the Mother of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who was at that time the shadow Secretary of State, and to the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), who was then the Leader of the Opposition, for the way in which they approached the issue. The easiest thing for any Opposition to do is simply to oppose everything for the sake of it, but on that issue, they recognised the importance of trying to arrive at a consensus in Parliament for the good of civil society.
I hope that you will not mind if I pay tribute to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, in your former guise as Opposition Chief Whip. I remember attending one meeting where it was somewhat presumed that I would be able to turn up on the night with 70 Conservative rebels to defeat the Government. You probably saw the anguish on my face at the daunting prospect of having to do such a thing. You made everybody else in the room aware that Whips’ Offices can, when they put their minds to it, be pretty good at burning off opposition.
It is true that the victims of phone hacking were quite concerned about the level of compromise that politicians were making on their behalf. I remember Hugh Grant being particularly sceptical of that. We got him in and said, “Trust us; we are going to do this. This is a cross-party consensus: all parties are signed up to it. It will happen.” It is disappointing that, a decade on, Hugh Grant is being proved right because of the Government’s actions through the Bill.
Some months after we had put in place the royal charter for the self-regulation of the press, I met Sir Alan Moses, who was the first inaugural chairman of the Independent Press Standards Organisation, the industry’s own regulator. I remember saying to Sir Alan, “IPSO is making good progress. It is an improvement on the PCC. It wouldn’t have to do a great deal more in order for it to be a recognised regulator. Why doesn’t IPSO simply seek recognition?” He said, “George, I completely agree with you. However, my contract of employment forbids me from saying so publicly.” How is that for the freedom of speech that we hear so much about? Sir Alan Moses, the inaugural chairman of IPSO, was subject to a gagging order, no less, that prevented him from saying what he believed to be true.
Let me turn to the specifics of section 40, which put in place one of the key provisions of Leveson’s recommendations: the creation of incentives for an industry regulator to seek recognition. That is often misunderstood, for the provisions of section 40 are symmetrical: not only does it protect innocent people who want redress and access to a process of arbitration, but it protects publishers from people with deep pockets who go to lawyers such as Carter-Ruck or Schillings and threaten litigation—through so-called SLAPPs—to intimidate and bully publishers and prevent them from publishing things. Had we put that in place and commenced section 40, if a Russian oligarch, for instance, had said, “If you print that, I will see you in court,” and all sorts of injunctions came forth from various lawyers, a publisher would have been able to say, “No, you won’t. We will see you in arbitration.” That would have protected genuine investigative journalism in a way that has never been done before.
Jeremy Corbyn
The right hon. Gentleman is making a most interesting speech. He must be aware that the laws relating to libel and so on are completely misshapen, in that it is totally a rich person’s game. Anyone without resources gets threatened with libel and is silenced immediately. They have no recourse to legal aid and no other way of dealing with the situation other than either to accept something they believe to be wrong or to make themselves bankrupt trying to defend themselves.
George Eustice
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The truth is that the system of arbitration, backed up by the cost provisions under section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, protected small, plucky journalists working for small publishers as much as it protected the weak and vulnerable who could not afford legal action. It is important to note that the arbitration system envisaged would only have engaged at all where there was what is called a cause of action, which is to say where people have a case in law. The arbitration system would never have become overwhelmed, since there would have been a sifting process to take out simple complaints about inaccuracy and so forth. In essence, the system would have focused predominantly on the areas of defamation and privacy.
We even considered what I used to term the Private Eye test, which is to say that if we have a publication that for all sorts of ideological reasons has never joined up to anything at all—bear in mind that Private Eye never even joined the Press Complaints Commission—there was an option for them to be able to demonstrate adherence to the principles set out in the royal charter while not joining a body. There was also a large area of discretion for the courts on an individual case. While there was a strong margin of appreciation in favour of those who signed up, it was not black and white. The clause stated that where it was “reasonable in the circumstances” for a court to find a different position, it had the right to do so.
I am therefore generally critical, as the House can understand, of the repeal of section 40, but I welcome the fact that the Government have committed to the continued existence of the royal charter on the self-regulation of the press and that they have no intention of bringing forward any Order in Council to disband the Press Recognition Panel. It is important to recognise that Leveson did not recommend that we needed to take a legal provision through an Act of Parliament to give effect to these cost provisions. His recommendation was that we or the courts could use the Civil Procedure Act 1997 to set civil procedure rules to create a margin of appreciation and an incentive in favour of those who joined an independent regulator.
While the Government legislated in this place, albeit that they then failed to commence the order, it was entirely understandable that the Civil Procedure Rule Committee and the Master of the Rolls might have felt it inappropriate for them to act in this space. Now that the Government have signalled their intention to vacate this space, it is entirely open to the Master of the Rolls and the Civil Procedure Rule Committee to make their own civil procedure rules in this space to give effect to the Leveson inquiry. Let us not forget that that inquiry was established under the Inquiries Act 2005 and is explicitly referenced in the royal charter. It would be fair and reasonable for the courts to give consideration and weight to that fact.
An important duty now falls to the Press Recognition Panel. That body, independent of Government, does not need to wait for advice or permission from Government; it is entirely open to the Press Recognition Panel to put together a detailed report setting out its recommendations for what the alternative incentives might be to encourage publishers to sign up to a recognised regulator. It may come up with some useful advice for all parties in this House as they consider their manifestos going forward.
In conclusion, I feel that the failure to commence the full architecture of the Leveson proposals was a terrible missed opportunity for the press, and I say that as one of the few Members on these Benches who first came into Parliament with a brown Press Gallery pass. I knew every single one of the journalists in the Press Gallery and the news organisations they worked for, and I developed a strong appreciation and respect for the individual character of each and every one of those newspaper organisations—even the ones that were often critical of the party on the Government Benches—as I understood their tradition.
Those of us who really believed in the freedom of the press and wanted to see the press thrive had in our minds that if it sought recognition, it would become distinguished from social media and other news content. A decade ago, we were already seeing the start of so-called “fake news” and the idea put forward by Leveson was that a recognised regulator could be used as a Kitemark showing a news organisation’s commitment to ethical journalism. That would be a positive and would restore trust in our press, which had been lost over the years. The idea was that the Broadcasting Act 1996, covered today in much of this Bill, would affect the regulated broadcasters, but that there would be a much more flexible, self-regulatory model for the press or other online content. We could also see, even 10 years ago, that there was going to be a convergence between broadcast media, who would increasingly have online news content in written form, and the print media, who would increasingly be online and would have podcasts and video content. Therefore, a blurring would take place in the traditional distinction between broadcast and print journalism. The great beauty of the architecture we put in place with the royal charter for the self-regulation of the press is that it enabled there to be multiple regulators, some of which might specialise just in online news and others that might specialise just in the printed press, with everything else in between. Had we implemented that, we would have had a great opportunity to restore trust in the truthfulness and integrity of journalism in this country.
There is a final reason why I believe it was short-sighted of the press not to do this. When the courts see that over a period of time there has been intransigence on the part of the press to take standards and genuine accountability seriously, and a craven weakness in this House to act in this space at all, they will make public policy decisions. It is no good complaining about SLAPPs, privacy injunctions and so forth when this House has failed to do even the most basic things to put in place some sensible protections for our civil society. So I would have opposed this Bill on those grounds alone, but I recognise that it contains much else that has cross-party support. I hope that the Government will consider removing clause 50 at a later stage of our consideration of this Bill.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on the Media Bill. I wish to focus narrowly on part 4, which sets out the provisions on public service broadcasting and gives Ofcom powers to draft and enforce a video-on-demand code. The Bill proposes to do that by extending audience protection measures, for example, age ratings and content warnings, that are currently enforced for broadcast media and BBC iPlayer-only to all on-demand programme services.
A number of colleagues have mentioned how the media landscape has evolved rapidly in our lifetimes. I remember the black-and-white telly in my parent’s lounge, with the choice of just three or four channels. I remember traditional linear TV, where we would all sit around to watch a programme and we would not answer the phone or the doorbell, because if we missed something, that was it. I remember my grandparents getting a VHS player before we did in the 1980s and my grandma would record “Thomas the Tank Engine” and “Postman Pat” for us, and we would binge watch it when we went to stay with her. Of course, so much has changed since then, and when my children were young, they did not even understand the concept of linear TV. I remember going to stay with a family member who did not have a smart TV at the time and my children did not understand how they could not watch “Octonauts” right that minute.
So much has changed in our lifetime. Of course, there are many wonderful aspects of media programming in this country—we have some fantastic content that is the envy of the world—but there are also some not-so-wonderful aspects, and there is lots of material out there that may be entertaining for adults but we definitely do not want children to see. That is the point of the Ofcom broadcasting code, which says for broadcast TV:
“1.1: Material that might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of people under eighteen must not be broadcast.
1.2: In the provision of services, broadcasters must take all reasonable steps to protect people under eighteen.
1.3: Children must also be protected by appropriate scheduling from material that is unsuitable for them.”
A healthy family media environment relies on parents being able to keep children safe by making sure they do not accidentally come upon content that is not suitable, and on parents having control over what is suitable for their own children. It goes without saying that young children should not be watching violence, sex, extreme language and all those kinds of things. We accept that as a society, and that is why we have rules and systems in place to help parents and to stop children seeing unsuitable content.
Our traditional on-demand media—cinema, DVD and VHS—is regulated by the British Board of Film Classification, which is a highly respected organisation that has been going for over 100 years. We are all familiar with the littles triangles telling us that a film is a U, PG, 12 and so on. Our TV scheduling is regulated by the broadcasting code, which mainly relies on the watershed so that broadcasters do not put out programmes before 9 pm that children should not see. On demand presents a new challenge for our broadcasters, because the watershed does not apply. By definition, all the content is available all the time, and therefore parents cannot rely on the fact that it is before 9 o’clock to know that a particular programme is safe.
Some commercial streaming services have voluntarily adopted the BBFC’s ratings. Netflix is a good example. It has adopted the U, PG, 12 and so on ratings. That is really important, because the BBFC ratings are some of the clearest, most transparent and most respected in the whole world. The BBFC even has an app now where parents can look for any programme or film, and it will tell them the rating and exactly why that rating is given, so that parents can be fully informed about what children are going to watch.
I visited the BBFC a couple of weeks ago—I highly recommend that to Members; it is more than willing to give briefings—to see how it rates films, trailers and programmes. It is a hugely impressive organisation, with enormous levels of trust from not just the content creators but the public. It surveys 10,000 members of the public every four years to ask them about their attitudes to violence, swearing, sex, drugs and so on, to feed into its ratings, so that there is buy-in from the public.
Some services have not opted into the BBFC ratings or produced a suitable rating system of their own. The most significant player in this category is Disney+, which has an opaque system of age rating that cannot be trusted by parents. For example, the film “Avatar”, which I think most people would say is suitable for children, has a rating of 16+, and yet a quite sinister adaptation of “A Christmas Carol” that involves nudity, horror, child molestation, forced prostitution and a depiction of child drowning has a rating of 9+.
The problem is that when parents see that kind of discrepancy, and when the ratings are opaque and there is no transparency about why things are rated in the way they are, parents just remove the passwords, because they think, “I want my child to be able to see ‘Avatar’”. But in removing the passwords or changing the settings on their account, they inadvertently enable children to watch a lot of material that is not suitable for them.
Clearly, Disney+ and other streaming services need to be subject to the same standards as broadcast media. If material is unsuitable for children, it is unsuitable whatever the platform on which it is viewed, and it is the intention of the Bill to remedy that. Clause 38 will require Ofcom to review audience protection measures used by providers of all on-demand tier 1 programme services, including those that do not have their headquarters in the UK. In other words, the Bill seeks to ensure that what we might call the new media—streamed content—is subject to the same audience protection measures, such as age ratings, content warnings, parental control and age assurance measures, as traditional and linear material such as cinema, DVD and broadcast TV.
So far, so good—that is a laudable and much-needed aim—but my question to the Government is, why reinvent the wheel? Why task Ofcom with another review and developing another new code, when we already have a world-leading regulatory framework in the BBFC? Why not instead extend the remit of the BBFC—an internationally trusted organisation—and an age-rating system understood by millions who already use streaming media, so that those familiar ratings logos of U, PG, 15 and so on are visible on each and every programme on every streaming platform?
Indeed, 88% of parents find the BBFC ratings on Netflix extremely helpful, so it would make sense to standardise these ratings across all the major streaming platforms. The platforms would pay the cost—that is how the BBFC is funded, so it would not require a massive expansion of the BBFC. For example, the BBFC gives the code and the transparent materials for rating to Netflix; Netflix polices itself, and every so often, the BBFC will check that it is fully compliant with the way it regulates itself. There would be a clear advantage to extending that universal rating system across all streaming services: it would not be reinventing the wheel, and there are also serious question marks about Ofcom’s capacity to deliver on both the requirements in this Bill and the significantly increased requirements placed on it by the passage of the Online Safety Act 2023. I urge the Minister to consider amending the Bill to use the BBFC and its code, rather than Ofcom, to achieve the aims of clause 38.
I also urge the Minister to consider extending the remit of the Bill’s audience protection provisions beyond broadcast and streaming to all UK-accessible video content, including online. I appreciate that that would be a very significant expansion of the Bill, but if its purpose is to bring audience protection regulation up to date with the current and future media landscape, we are just skirting around the issue if we do not include online content. Indeed, the principle of part 4 of the Bill is to create that parity between online and offline. Nowhere is that more needed than in the much less regulated online space.
I say that principally because of the proliferation of unregulated hardcore pornography on the internet—pornography that would be completely illegal in the offline world, on DVDs or on streaming services—that is now being viewed by millions, including children, and causing immense societal damage. We are not talking about erotic magazines passed by teenage boys around the bike sheds, but extreme, violent, hardcore, repulsive and completely illegal material: violent rapes, violent assaults and incest. It is the most unimaginable, degrading material—material that is illegal offline on traditional platforms, and always has been. If we are rightly convinced that it matters what people watch—that it matters that children are protected from strong content, whether they are watching it on TV, streaming it on demand or seeing it on their phones—we have to apply the same principle to pornography.
A third of the internet is pornography; Pornhub has more users than Twitter, Instagram, Netflix, Pinterest, Zoom and LinkedIn put together. It is a $100 million industry, and algorithms draw users into more and more extreme material. The Government’s own research makes the link between viewing violent pornography and violence against women and girls, yet the average age of first viewing in this country is 11. We will never turn the tide on violence against women and girls unless we recognise the role of pornography in conditioning men and boys to link violence with sexual pleasure. That is why I urge the Minister to bring online pornography content within the scope of the audience protection measures in the Bill.
The Online Safety Act will go some way towards helping in this space: its age verification provisions will make it harder for under-18s to access that content. I very much commend the Government on accepting those amendments, which had cross-party support. But that Act missed an opportunity to crack down on online porn that would be completely illegal in the offline world—material that still proliferates online and, even with the new protections, will of course be accessed by some children. Again, the BBFC can have a role here, because it is the BBFC’s role to regulate offline porn, such as DVDs, and certain adult websites. It has a very effective working relationship with the adult industry and with payment providers, so if the BBFC establishes that a particular adult platform has on it a video that is illegal and should be taken down, it can contact the payment providers and ask them to deny payment to that website until the video is taken down.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the BBFC is also a very established brand that is trusted and understood by the public, so the public would themselves have confidence if the BBFC was given the ability to act in this space?
Miriam Cates
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is exactly why I am calling for the BBFC to have a much greater role in this Bill, but also for that role to be extended to the regulation of pornography. The BBFC has been going for over 100 years; other countries look to it and its ratings. It has buy-in from the public and from the content creators themselves, so it is perfectly placed to provide the kind of regulation and expertise we need. If we really want online and offline parity when it comes to audience safety—of course we do, because it does not matter where this content is viewed; it will have the same effect—we must look to include pornography in the scope of the Bill. I would go so far as to say that if the Government really want to leave a legacy of child protection and reducing violence against women and girls, nothing is more important than preventing access to hardcore pornography that is, and always has been, illegal in the offline world.
I welcome the Bill; it contains some excellent provisions. Obviously, I have focused narrowly on one aspect of it, but I ask Ministers to consider mandating that all streaming services use the BBFC’s age verification ratings, and extending audience protection measures to online content, especially violent pornography.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
I am delighted to see this Bill before the House today. It has been a long time coming, and its arrival is extremely welcome.
From a very young age, I wanted to be a broadcaster. So committed was I to this goal that I wrote to BBC Radio Oxford at the tender age of 15, and complained that it did not produce any programmes for teenagers. Somewhat to my surprise, it told me to put my money where my mouth was, and invited me to go in and make them myself. My first series covered such weighty topics as spots and school dinners; life as a teenager was rather more naive in that long ago era.
After university, I joined the BBC full time in its news and current affairs department, working as a reporter, presenter and producer. As the Spice Girls, in a blaze of colour, heralded the launch of Channel 5 in 1997, I perched on the newsroom desk to prove that current affairs did not have to be stuffy and boring. Indeed, so keen were we to be modern and relevant that I was even allowed to have a cameo as a newscaster in “Shaun of the Dead”. There being no greater possible pinnacle of an on-air career, I then moved behind the scenes to work as an adviser to ITV for several years.
I recount this biography not as an application to make a late appearance on the new series of “I’m a Celebrity”—I feel these Benches have provided enough victims of that recently—but to show that I have been lucky enough to have some experience of the subject matter, and perhaps more importantly, to illustrate the wide range of the country’s public service broadcasting landscape. All the broadcasters I have mentioned—the BBC, Channel 5 and ITV—have in common that they are PSBs, and it is on them that I wish to devote most of my remarks.
Public service broadcasting is not just about news and current affairs, crucial though they are; it is about reflecting all parts of our country, not just the metropolitan elites, not just London—and, indeed, not just England, as we have heard from our colleagues in the Scottish National party. It is also about showing programmes that do not just have an immediate commercial rationale. As one example, I think Channel 5’s commitment to children’s programming is commendable, and its recent commission of an animated series with disabled lead characters for pre-school children is incredibly important.
As the Government themselves have stated, this Bill will
“reform the legal framework for the regulation of public service broadcasting”,
and there can be no doubt that this is sorely needed, because the media and entertainment landscape, as we have heard several times, has changed almost beyond recognition over the past 20 years. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) and my hon. Friends the Members for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) and for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) have touched on some of the circumstances we faced in 2003, such as watching analogue TV, Netflix still posting DVDs to its customers and Blockbuster Video still existing on our high streets. YouTube, iPhones and Twitter had not been invented, yet they are the ways in which we watch much of our content these days.
Let me add some other cultural memories of that year. Jemini—with a J—scored “nul points” at Eurovision, Cilla Black quit “Blind Date” live on air and Jonny Wilkinson scored a last-minute drop goal that won the Rugby world cup and the nation’s hearts. That same year, 2003, more than 19 million viewers were glued to their screens as the “Coronation Street” serial killer Richard Hillman abducted the Platts and drove the family into the canal. It was must-watch TV the length and breadth of the country. However, those TV audience numbers for drama could only be dreamt of today. Indeed, the entire TV landscape is almost unrecognisable, thanks to rapid developments in technology that have in turn brought about fundamental changes in viewing habits. Today, 75% of households have an on-demand streaming service, and according to Ofcom, 90% of 18 to 24-year-old adults bypass TV channels and head straight to streaming, on-demand and social video services when they are looking for something to watch.
While the likes of Netflix, Prime and Disney offer a panoply of great programming, they are not bound by the requirements on our public service broadcasters—the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5. The responsibility that PSBs bear to present socially valuable content carries a burden, and it is only right that that is reflected in the regulatory regime. Key to achieving that is ensuring due prominence for PSBs on whatever device. At its simplest, there is no value in having high quality, publicly important programming if viewers cannot find it quickly and easily, yet that is increasingly the risk with the market as it is today.
We are all familiar with the shift away from an on-screen list of TV programmes—electronic programme guides—to a set of tiles along the bottom of our screens, but whereas the lowest numbers on an old EPG could easily be reserved for the PSBs, the tiles can be set in pretty much any order. Inevitably, those linked to the highest paying providers of content, or otherwise prioritised, are frequently the first to be seen. It can take many clicks on the remote to get to the smaller PSBs: Channels 4 and 5.
I strongly welcome the Government’s provisions on the new online prominence regime, and I agree with ITV that a “clear mandate” must be
“given to Ofcom for a muscular implementation of the Bill…on terms that enable PSBs to flourish and deliver their remits.”
I would be grateful if the Minister set out in a little more detail how he envisages Ofcom implementing the new regime, and said whether he supports the regulator taking a bold stance to ensure that global companies comply with our decisions in Parliament for an appropriate level of prominence for our PSBs.
I would also be grateful for reassurance that a secondary power to designate platforms will be cast as broadly as necessary to achieve the aims of Bill. For example, that could potentially include gaming consoles, which I understand from much younger colleagues are often used to access PSB content. This is not just about watching the box in the corner of the room. The requirement to give PSBs prominence cannot become a licence to print money by the platforms carrying them, so I welcome the Bill’s proposals for a must-offer, must-carry regime, with an arbitration scheme as a backstop.
The other side of the coin is that the privilege of prominence carries with it a duty, and nowhere more so than at the BBC. It must do better if it is to retain its hallowed position as the most prominent and privileged of the PSBs, because it is funded by all of us through the licence fee. I have said before that I believe that that funding method is living on borrowed time; it is an anachronistic and frankly regressive tax. During my 12 years as a magistrate, I saw the painful impact, particularly on some women, of the draconian measures that are taken against those who cannot afford to pay that licence. Although the future of the licence fee is not part of today’s debate, the funding model puts additional and serious duties on the BBC as a PSB.
I fear that the BBC is no longer the organisation that I joined more than 30 years ago. We are all familiar with the growing torrent of criticism, not least of aspects of its coverage of the middle east crisis. Although there are undoubtedly some phenomenally good and brave journalists in the field, there have also been some appalling and inexcusable lapses in the BBC’s reporting. Responsibility for that must go to the very top of the newsroom, and it must always be remembered that the facts are far more important than a juicy headline. I fear that if it is not careful, BBC Verify will have to start scrutinising its own newsroom, and that was not the idea of it in the first place.
Sir Peter Bottomley
Leaving aside the newsroom, when pensioners started paying the licence fee again, I had a large number of them in my constituency. Three of them made contact with me, one of whom objected, and two of whom were trying to pay in an old-fashioned way that the BBC’s agents could not cope with. That shows that the licence subscription system works pretty well and is welcomed. I say to my hon. Friend that if we had the alternative to the licence fee, or some other kind of household impost, we would have a subscription where the BBC stops serving everyone in the country, and starts serving those who choose to pay. As it is a national institution, we still face the question put by the Canadian, Graham Spry, nearly 100 years ago:
“It is a choice between the state and the United States.”
Let us choose the state and make it a public broadcaster still.
Rob Butler
I thank the Father of the House for his intervention. He raises important points, which is why we will need to have a long and detailed debate on the future of the licence fee at another time. I chose my words relatively carefully in saying that I hoped the licence fee was living on borrowed time, rather than saying that the end must come immediately. My hon. Friend raises points that will have to be addressed before we move to another system, but I personally feel that the current model is not sustainable in the medium to long term.
It is not just me who has raised concerns about the BBC. According to the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, trust in BBC News has plummeted from 75% in 2018 to 55% in 2022. That trend clearly cannot continue.
I have focused my remarks principally on broadcasters, as that is where the majority of my experience lies, but I will turn for a moment to the print media. I listened carefully to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), and I am afraid to disappoint him but I agree rather more with my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) on section 40. I am glad to see the Bill removing that sword of Damocles from newspapers. It struck me that, although it was never commenced, it loomed over papers and magazines as a potential form of state control that would have been unconscionable interference in the freedom of the press. While I have many quibbles with both national and local newspapers about how they cover some stories, I felt that the draconian measures in section 40 were an entirely disproportionate way to tackle complaints.
Rob Butler
I will make one or two more points, just in case they answer my right hon. Friend’s question, but I will certainly give way in a moment.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on media freedom, it was a surprise to me that it was ever considered appropriate to oblige the publisher to pay the costs of both sides in a legal claim, even if the publication won the case. I know that that stance was taken by the organisation Reporters Without Borders. Thankfully, the Bill will put that right, and I am reassured that the industry’s own actions in recent years in setting up its own regulator, IPSO, and beefing up internal complaints handling procedures have proved effective, without the need for further statutory intervention.
George Eustice
Obviously, the easy way for any publisher to avoid the cost provisions would be to seek recognition. What is it about the Leveson recommendations that my hon. Friend disagrees with so much? What in the royal charter for the self-regulation of the press does he find objectionable and impossible for a news organisation to subscribe to?
Rob Butler
As I just outlined, my principal concern is about the suggestion that a publisher would have to pay the loser’s costs, irrespective of what those costs could be.
The Government have considered the many factors in play in reaching this decision. It is important to say that this is not a licence for newspapers to print whatever they wish—I hope that is understood in my local area by the Bucks Herald and the Bucks Free Press. There are undoubtedly times when the line between fact, comment and insinuation seems to be ever thinner. Self-regulation brings with it a responsibility to get articles right first time, as well as to give sufficient opportunity for a right to reply and appropriate space for both sides of the story. I hope that newspaper owners and editors will take the opportunity of the repeal of section 40 to redouble their efforts to justify the trust we are putting in them to work to the highest standards.
The Media Bill is essential to securing the long-term future of our public service broadcasters. More than that, it gives confidence to our nation’s wider creative economy. We need to ensure that the Bill gets on to the statute book as smoothly and quickly as possible. I have not proposed amendments or called for specific changes because I recognise the urgency. The industry has worked closely with the Department for many months, if not years. As a result, I believe that we have before us a Bill that is well thought-out, fit for the future and fair to all. I am delighted to give it my enthusiastic support.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler). I fear that I may repeat much of what he just said. I am pleased to be speaking in this debate, a week on from the King’s Speech debate in which I spent quite a bit of time calling on the Government to get on and introduce the Media Bill. For once, they listened to me—that’s nice.
The Media Bill we are debating is the first piece of media legislation for 20 years. The media landscape has changed beyond belief in the last two decades—it is vastly different from the world we lived in 20 years ago—so the Bill is vital to supporting broadcasters and audiences in the modern age. As the media landscape has changed, it is important that we support legislation without delay to give certainty to this important sector. We should recognise that the Bill will probably govern the media landscape for the next 20 years, so it must be forward-thinking, outward-looking and open, just as the previous legislation was.
I declare my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary media group and the all-party parliamentary group on commercial radio. Let me start by saying that I welcome the Bill, which responds well to the needs of the sector. Because of time limitations, I will focus my remarks on three specific areas of the Bill. I will do something that I rarely do, and put television ahead of radio.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to simplifying the existing remit for public service broadcasters. PSBs are what make our television landscape renowned around the world, but they face unprecedented competition for viewers, programming content and talent in an era when global streaming services such as Netflix and Amazon Prime are producing original content and becoming increasingly dominant in the market. It is good that we have more content producers, but even better, they are choosing to make content here in the UK because of our regulatory framework.
TV prominence is about ensuring that UK viewers can easily find public service content that they value. We are living in an increasingly global marketplace, but there is still an appetite for programmes that reflect British values. In fact, around seven in 10 UK adults want UK life and culture to be represented on screen, and a similar number agree that PSBs make programmes designed for UK audiences. Why is it important that we introduce legislation to protect PSBs? Surely, viewers will want to watch the programmes that they make.
Until now, in return for providing public service content, the Government, through Ofcom, have allocated frequencies to broadcasters. In a relatively uncomplicated world, those channels have been easy to find on electronic programme guides: ITV, and STV in Scotland, on channel 3; Channel 4 and Channel 5 on their respective channels. Once someone has tuned in their TV to the nearest transmitter, they press the number on their remote control and the channel is there.
In a future world where the internet is used to deliver the linear TV and video on demand, the tech companies and platforms will decide where products and programmes appear. In fact, at the moment, if Samsung or LG decided not to include the BBC iPlayer app on their TV screens, there is nothing the BBC, UK viewers or the Government could do about it. If Amazon decided to double the charge for Channel 4’s on-demand service to appear on its Fire Stick, there is little Channel 4 could do about it. From speaking to Channel 4, I know that when Amazon moved the location of the Channel 4 app on the Fire Stick, there was a significant alteration in the viewing of Channel 4. It matters where the apps are located on the relevant platform.
If we want to make sure that British viewers can easily find BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5, and STV in Scotland and S4C in Wales, we need to agree the framework that will ensure that platforms carry those services. I fully support that. I also urge the Government to look carefully at using the word “significant” rather than “appropriate”. That will determine where the channels are found on those platforms.
Kirsty Blackman
I wholeheartedly agree that it is not just about the schedule. As I said earlier, I was not aware that we had a schedule. We do not use Freeview; we open the Fire Stick or PlayStation and look at the apps. The prominence of the apps is important. If someone does not have terrestrial TV or an aerial hooked up, that is the only way that they are able to consume the public service broadcast content.
Andy Carter
There may be an age divide that determines whether someone looks at an electronic programme guide or the Radio Times, or whether they just look for a tile. The notion that viewers want to continue to use linear TV is important. That is why it is so critical that we legislate in the right way to make sure that British viewers can find it.
The changes in the Bill will impact Channel 4 more than any other PSB, given its unique publisher-broadcaster licence. Channel 4’s status, introduced by the Conservative Government back in the 1980s, has significantly aided the development of the independent production sector in the UK over the last 40 years, which is now worth nearly £4 billion. The removal of the publisher-broadcaster restrictions will allow for Channel 4 to produce its own content, as opposed to simply commissioning or acquiring all of its content from third parties. Why does that matter? For the first time, it will allow Channel 4, when it produces content, to own the rights for that content, which it can then sell around the world, creating another stream of revenue which will allow products and programmes to be funded on Channel 4.
The Government have announced plans to increase Channel 4’s independent production quota as part of the changes. However, there will be many small production companies in areas such as the north-west of England, which have seen a rapid growth in independent production businesses, who are still unsure about the full impact the changes will have for them. Will the Minister, in his response, expand a little more on what the changes will mean for those businesses and give some assurances that they will still be able to thrive once Channel 4 receives its new licence and the Bill receives Royal Assent?
Channel 4 has indicated that it will maintain its existing commitment to spend 50% of its budget for main channel commissions outside London. That is really important to regional production. Ofcom has announced that it will be consulting on whether changes will need to be made to Channel 4’s regional programming making quotas. Is the Minister able to provide a timeline for that consultation, so we know when any changes will come into effect?
I want to touch on local TV and echo some of the comments from other hon. and right hon. Members. I have received representations from the local TV networks who are concerned that the current Bill does not guarantee local TV service prominence in the new TV ecology, and neither does it grant powers on a par with those of local radio services. At some point, the sector will start to provide streamed linear programme services. Will the Government be giving consideration to including local TV as part of the licensed public service channel designation in the Bill to help ensure sustainability for the sector? It really is important that there is an understanding for this sector going forward, because it is making decisions today on the future of its business plans.
Finally on TV, if we are looking to the next 20 years, because this is the only Bill we are likely to see in the media landscape, we should be conscious that the previous broadcasting Bill ran for 20 years. On the Government’s management of a digital terrestrial television switchover, I have been reassured in my conversations with the Minister that he wants terrestrial television to remain accessible for the foreseeable future. I very much agree with him on that. When he is summing up, could he give an indication of the criteria he might want to set before broadcast TV services on Freeview are considered for switch off? That was in place for DAB digital radio. There was a clear criteria in terms of when that might happen. Things have moved many, many times over the years, but it would be helpful for the digital terrestrial sector to understand what the Government might be thinking.
Before I turn to the provisions on radio, may I put on record my congratulations to all those who have worked in commercial radio over the past 50 years? Independent local radio, as we once knew it, celebrated its 50th anniversary just a few weeks ago. It was 50 years ago in October since LBC and Capital Radio arrived on our airwaves in the capital, 50 years since Radio Clyde in Glasgow launched and 50 years since BRMB in Birmingham launched. They were the four stations in 1973 that appeared on our AM radios. Over the 50 years, we have seen a plethora of local, regional and national stations arrive on AM, FM, DAB and now online via Radioplayer and smart speakers. Today, commercial radio is delivering record audiences. Back in the early 1980s, we were all convinced that video was going to kill the radio star. Actually, radio is in rude health. We have regional brands, national stations and hyperlocal services focused on their own towns and cities that are doing remarkably well. We should all recognise in this House how strong commercial radio is today and how much we value the services that people who work in that sector provide for us.
There is unanimous agreement across the BBC, and across commercial and community radio, that the Bill, on the whole, works for radio. It contains crucial measures that will help to safeguard the future in the face of changing technology and shifts in listening habits. The radio sector continues to deliver significant public value, providing trusted news, entertainment and—particularly important—companionship for about 50 million listeners every week. UK radio broadcasters make a substantial contribution to the creative industries, and BBC and commercial radio combined generate more than £1.5 billion in gross value added for the UK economy.
I especially welcome the provisions to support the future of the UK radio industry on voice-activated smart speaker platforms, and the removal of outdated regulatory burdens such as music formats on analogue licences for commercial radio stations. When there was a limited number of stations in each market, it was right for the Government to regulate the number of stations that could provide each particular type of service, but today, when there are a great many services, it should be for the market to decide. If country music is not working, it is possible to switch to jazz without spending too much time bothering the regulator.
There are, however, a few parts of the Bill that I should like the Minister to clarify for the industry. Part 5 deals with the safeguarding of local news and information on DAB services, and it would be helpful if the Minister could explain how those powers will work in practice. For instance, how would a multiplex decide which services must carry local news? Would the multiplex owner be responsible for the enforcement against a digital sound service provider, or would that be the responsibility of Ofcom? What would happen if a service carrying local news stopped broadcasting? Would the obligation be transferred to another service holder, or to the multiplex owner? As for Ofcom’s new role in producing guidelines for the regular broadcast of local news, can the Minister tell us when and how Ofcom will be consulting on that process?
Part 6 contains clauses relating to futureproofing. Will there be scope for expansion of the provisions to cover on-demand and online-only radio content provided by UK broadcasters, as opposed to linear content? Finally, may I ask whether the Government will consider an amendment to protect access to radio in cars, which still accounts for about a quarter of all radio listening, by bringing non-voice activated infotainment systems within the scope of the Bill?
I want to touch briefly on the proposals
“for the repeal of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013”,
a decade-old provision that has never been brought into force. While I appreciated the opportunity to observe the perspective of my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), whose knowledgeable account of the forming of that legislation was extremely insightful, I am afraid I disagree with the points that he made. It does not seem right to me that publishers who are taken to court could be forced to pay the legal costs of a judgment if they are not a member of an approved regulator, regardless of whether they win or lose the case. I am a firm believer in the freedom of the press. I have spent time working as a journalist, and there have been times when journalists have written about my activities. There are, occasionally, times when I do not like what the press have written, and there are, occasionally, times when I believe that the press have got it wrong. Healthy democracies, however, need objective journalism which is free from state involvement.
The reason I do not agree with my right hon. Friend is this. The Leveson report recommended a system of
“voluntary independent self-regulation”,
envisaging
“a body, established and organised by the industry”
which
“must be funded by its members”.
Lord Justice Leveson said that that body should include all the major players in the industry—national newspapers, and as many regional and local newspaper and magazine publishers as possible—
“although I am very anxious that it remain voluntary”.
George Eustice
What Lord Justice Leveson actually said was that the members of the body would only be recognised as a regulator if they had sought recognition from an organisation called the Press Recognition Panel. Leveson very clearly rejected the model put forward by Lord Black in the other place, for the very good reason that there was no independent accountability and no body to recognise that independent regulator.
Andy Carter
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s comments and I recognise his knowledge in this area. He was involved at such a deep level that he has experience and expertise in this field.
For me, the media regulatory landscape has changed significantly since section 40 was introduced, with the Independent Press Standards Organisation now regulating nearly 2,000 print and online titles, including the vast majority of UK national, regional and local newspapers. I feel that that has left us with an obsolete law on the statute book which was never enacted. Removing the section was a Conservative party manifesto commitment in 2017 and in 2019, so I welcome its proposed repeal by the Bill.
In concluding my remarks, I want to offer my thanks to the Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), to the Secretary of State and to officials in DCMS for all their positive engagement with me, with the industry and with those in the House who have long been pressing for this Bill to be brought forward. I know that the Minister is just as keen as I am to see the Media Bill on the statute book, and I am grateful to him for taking note of the issues that I have raised today. I look forward to his addressing those issues in his reply, as well as to our continued engagement over the coming months so that we can pass this Bill as soon as possible.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter). I remember being warned by the Whips on my very first day in this place, “Do not make the mistake of thinking that the media are your friends. They are not.” I can still remember that. After four years of being in this place I understand the sentiment, but actually we have a job to do. It is to represent our constituents and be accountable, and the media equally have a job to do. As far as I am concerned, we form a relationship with each other, hopefully for the benefit of our constituents. It might not always be a friendship, but in my case it is a decent, healthy working relationship none the less. In North Norfolk we are lucky, because we have some really good local media companies. We have good local TV, good local radio and good local newspapers, and I work with them all. I would like to think that we have a good relationship because I have a job to do and so do they in reporting on my role and what I am doing in Parliament.
We all know that local media are under immense pressure and I have been very outspoken about BBC local radio cuts. BBC Radio Norfolk is a beloved institution in my parts and I still think that those cuts were misguided and wrong. They will devalue the product, push content creators into online from radio and put pressure on our regional newspapers, which are already struggling as a result of the ever-dwindling numbers of people who are reading print content. Local media are often far more adept at reporting on the stories our constituents want to hear, because the regional stories affect the reader directly. Local news programming often aims to be the authentic voice of its viewers and their interests, with viewers often telling stories directly through their own words.
One of the purposes of the Media Bill is supposed to be to ensure that viewing migrating to new streamed platforms does not result in viewing and revenues to public service broadcasting being lost. However, while supporting the largest broadcasters, the Bill does little to protect the rights of viewers to access local news and information on their new TV sets. So for me, the fundamental issue of the Bill is the definition of public service channels. Under the Bill, local TV services are no longer included in the definition, which means that Ofcom will have no power to secure carriage and prominence for internet-delivered local TV streamed services on smart TV sets.
The reality of that is that if local TV services cannot replace lost viewing and revenues, they will ultimately no longer be able to deliver their services. For one of my local TV stations, That’s TV, it will have a direct impact on its business. I have always supported That’s TV, along with its presenter Charlie Walden and now his successor, Ryan Wykes. Both have been young, talented and keen reporters and I have greatly enjoyed working with them. It is important that they flourish and are not lost, because the demise of local TV would be an irreversible loss to the media landscape.
Where the Bill has got it right is in reducing the regulatory burden on commercial radio stations. They, too, are stretched for advertising revenue but contribute enormously to the rich fabric of community media. To give an example of just how popular local radio is in my region: according to RAJAR data from Sept 2023, 199,000 people across Norfolk and north Suffolk tuned into Greatest Hits Radio, including 18,000 in North Norfolk alone. That is more than BBC Radio Norfolk, at 125,000, and more than Heart Norfolk, at 174,000. That echoes what my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South has just said.
Of all the people listening to the radio in Norfolk, around one in every five listened to Greatest Hits Radio for at least some of the time. It is vital that stations like these are supported and enhanced so that brilliant reporters such as Tom Clabon can continue to report on the latest and most important regional topics, day in and day out. I often find these journalists have a freer rein and more flexibility than journalists from, say, the BBC, with its strict schedule on what they can and cannot report.
One concern is that increasing the visibility or accessibility of public service broadcast content could have an adverse consequence in providing unfair competition to regional newspapers that, as we know, are under great pressure across the country. I am blessed to have a brilliant local newspaper that covers all of my constituency—I know not all MPs have that.
There is almost a clamour to buy the North Norfolk News on a Thursday morning, and I pay tribute to up-and-coming journalists such as Adam Barker and the local democracy reporter George Thompson, and not forgetting Stuart Anderson, the community editor, who was the first reporter to interview me after my election, We have worked together productively ever since I was elected to inform the population of all things in North Norfolk.
As I end, I cannot fail to mention protections for non-commercial community radio stations. I have one of the best, Poppyland Radio, based in Northrepps village hall. A bunch of wonderfully energetic, creative and talented presenters and volunteers enable it to broadcast 24/7 but, like every other local media channel, it needs protection to ensure its viability. I hope consideration can be given so that, across the spectrum, it is not just the broadcasting giants that are protected but also the content creators who represent our smaller communities. Without them, the journalists of the future may never be given the opportunity to learn their trade, and then we and the communities we represent would all ultimately suffer.
Thangam Debbonaire
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the House for neglecting to mention at the start of my remarks that I have recently accepted hospitality totalling £345 from Sky, a broadcaster, to see Madonna—it was unforgettable. I apologise for failing to mention that in my remarks, and I wish to correct the record. I hope that is acceptable. Thank you for your guidance.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order and for correcting the record as quickly as possible, for which I am grateful.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
I am pleased to welcome the introduction of the overdue Media Bill. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
It has been 20 years since the last major piece of broadcasting legislation was passed, and the media landscape has since changed dramatically. In 2003, the words “television” and “radio” described the devices on which we consumed our visual and audio content. Now these formats have taken on a life of their own.
Television can be viewed without a physical TV, and radio can be streamed online. As this technology has evolved, so have the habits of audiences and the competitors entering the industry. In the television space, for example, global streaming services now challenge our public service broadcasters for the attention of audiences. Rather than being linear channels, they offer catalogues of content for the price of a subscription.
Against this backdrop, we are pleased to finally have the Media Bill before us today, in order to give our public service broadcasters and UK radio the tools they need to thrive in the digital era. Just last week, I again met stakeholders from across the industry, including from public service broadcasters, radio providers, online platforms and consumer groups. While not everyone agreed on every detail of the Bill, what was clear from the discussions was the almost unanimous desire to get the Bill through as soon as possible.
Too much time has already been wasted in bringing forward the changes that are needed. Around 18 months ago, Ministers first introduced the “Up Next” White Paper, which contained many of the crucial measures we see before us in the Bill today, including welcome commitments to modernise the public service remit, to ensure public service content is prominent and easy to find on smart TVs and streaming sticks, and to futureproof the listed events regime, so that UK audiences can enjoy important national sporting moments.
However, rather than getting on with providing support for the broadcasting industry, the Government chose to waste a year pursuing doomed plans to privatise Channel 4 instead. Thanks to widespread opposition, Ministers finally made a very welcome U-turn on that proposal. That was a huge relief, not least for those local economies across the country who rely on Channel 4 spending over 50% of its commissioning budget in areas outside London, which the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) raised some important questions about.
Although I am pleased to welcome the Bill today and look forward to supporting it in its passage, it is vital that the Bill is subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny. Indeed, the Bill has already made distinct progress from its draft thanks to pre-legislative work by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which has rightly received praise from across the House. The Chair, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), outlined some of the accepted changes, including creating exemptions to the 30-day requirement, making progress in closing the streaming loophole in the listed events regime and adding much-needed protections to help facilitate a smooth end to Channel 4’s publisher-broadcaster restriction.
However, I would like to highlight some areas where clarification may be needed, starting with the first four parts of the Bill, which primarily focus on visual media. It is important that the Bill seeks to ensure that the public service remit is not overly complex or onerous. However, the Voice of the Listener and Viewer, the Media Reform Coalition and the Culture, Media and Sport Committee have raised concerns that removing explicit requirements to cover genres such as entertainment, drama, science, religion and other beliefs could lead to a decline in the provision of content in those areas. Will the Minister clarify what impact assessment the Department has carried out on how the new remit will impact the nature of public service content, particularly with respect to the removed genres?
In the light of changing viewing patterns, it is sensible to provide PSBs with some flexibility to meet their remit through on demand programming, but the Broadcast 2040+ campaign and others have been clear that public service content on linear television must still be protected and maintained. If it is not, we risk excluding those who live in rural areas, do not have an internet connection and an older generation that rely on being able to watch television in its traditional format. Will the Minister explain how the Department will work with Ofcom to hold our PSBs to the highest standards, and ensure that they continue to deliver quality content for as many people as possible?
Further scrutiny will also be needed to ensure the new video-on-demand code is not just a copy and paste of the broadcasting code, and is tailored to the needs of the on-demand environment, a point touched on by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins). It must also be clear who this code will apply to. Currently, the Government have said tier one services will be subject to the code, but there is confusion over how tier one will be defined.
Discussions will also be important to ensure the new prominence regime achieves the aim of making sure public service content is easily accessible on smart devices, properly considers how best to implement prominence for the likes of S4C, as raised by a number of hon. Members, and takes into account legacy devices.
On listed events, we need further clarification on how the findings from the Government’s consultation into digital rights will be implemented. We do not want a situation where a major sporting event takes place overnight and the next day the online clips are behind a paywall, meaning people in the UK are cut off from viewing it.
Let me move now to the radio-focused parts of the Bill—particularly part 6. I am aware that there has been a wider concern over the drafting and intent of the clauses. Thanks to the occasions that I have been in this Chamber to discuss the importance of preserving BBC local radio, the Minister will be well aware by now that I believe that radio services are of vital importance to people up and down the country. I am therefore also in full support of the changes that the Bill makes to ensure that UK radio services are available and easy to access, without undue interruption, on devices such as smart speakers.
It is with that support in mind that I wish to ask the Minister how he plans to ensure that these measures are futureproofed, as I know that is something that Radiocentre and the BBC have raised, too. For example, does the Department have any plans to extend the regime where necessary, for instance, to include car entertainment systems? Further, despite the rapid growth of podcasts and online-only radio, these forms of audio are not covered by the Bill’s protections. Does the Minister believe that that, too, should be kept under review?
Although I support these measures, I know that the likes of TuneIn, TechUK, and Google, which I met last week, have shared some concerns over this section. Again, I am pleased that the Department has taken on board some of the important recommendations made by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee to ease some of those concerns. However, I would still be keen to hear from the Minister on what work the Department has carried out to ensure that smart speaker platforms are able to prepare internally for carrying radio services through their preferred routes. It is vital that radio is protected in light of changing listening habits, and, in order for this regime to be successfully implemented, there must be proper engagement with platforms and technology stakeholders to ensure that they are able to comply.
Although the Media Bill is overdue and in need of some clarifications and adjustments, I am very pleased to welcome it today. I look forward to working closely with Ministers and Members from across the House on ensuring that we seize this once in a generation opportunity to update media regulation, and create the change needed to ensure the future of our brilliant British TV and radio.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Sir John Whittingdale)
May I start by thanking all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate? It has been wide ranging and remarkably consensual with one small exception. Nevertheless, there has been much support for what the Government are seeking to do in this Bill from right across the House. That is perhaps in part because it has been a long time in the preparation, but I think that it is all the better for that. The Government decided to publish the Bill in draft form, and we have consulted very widely since that time.
We are extremely grateful to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), and to the Lords Communication and Digital Committee. We have also held extensive discussions with broadcasters, platforms and all those who have an interest including—just to reassure the Father of the House—with Colin Browne of the Voice of the Listener & Viewer, whom I met recently. We intend to continue to engage with all those with an interest in the Bill to make absolutely sure that we have got it right.
A number of hon. Members, in the course of their contributions, remarked on the extraordinary transformation that has occurred in the media landscape over the past few years. It is absolutely the case that things such as EPGs and linear television are becoming less and less part of everyday behaviour, particularly for young people who access television content. It has meant that there has had to be a succession of Bills to update the legislation to take account of the changes. I have to admit that I was a member of the Broadcasting Bill Standing Committee in 1996. I led for the Opposition in the Committee on the Communications Act 2003, and I am delighted that I shall be taking this Bill through Committee in the next few weeks.
I particularly welcome the offer from the shadow Secretary of State to work with us in taking the Bill through and I look forward to working with her and the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) in Committee as I think that there are areas where we share a common objective. We are also keen to work with all members of the Committee to ensure that we get this right.
As I say, there has been a remarkable transformation in the media landscape. We are particularly grateful for the recommendations, and I want to touch on one or two made particularly by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. I have always had a high regard for that Committee, having spent 10 years chairing it. As ever, the report produced by the Committee was extremely valuable and we were delighted that we were able to accept a large number of the recommendations.
There were one or two recommendations on which we took a different view. In particular, one that has been raised by a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Gosport and for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), was the distinction between “significant” and “appropriate”. A number Members have recommended that we should use the words “significant prominence”, rather than “appropriate prominence”. The Government have taken a different view, which can be summed up as, “Significant can indeed be appropriate, but appropriate is not necessarily significant.”
S4C is an example of that. In Wales, it is very important that it should be highly visible, and therefore significant prominence in Wales is appropriate. On the other hand, it would not necessarily be appropriate for S4C to have significant prominence outside Wales. It should obviously be findable, but it has a different position outside Wales. The Government remain of the view that “appropriate” is a more fitting term than “significant”.
Dr Coffey
I am very conscious of what my right hon. Friend says, but “appropriate” is so wishy-washy and it is clear that promoting S4C in parts of England is not what people are talking about. It is leaving the decision to Ofcom and judges, as opposed to the very clear signal from Parliament that we want our public service broadcasters to be high up the list right across the country, including on the platforms we discussed earlier.
Sir John Whittingdale
As I say, in a large number of cases the appropriate position would be a significant one, but we think there needs to be a degree of flexibility to take account of regional differences, and therefore that Ofcom is perhaps better placed to look at each individual example and decide the appropriate level.
I come to Channel 4, which has featured a lot in the course of the debate. Channel 4, set up by a Conservative Government, has played an extremely valuable role in the broadcasting landscape. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe who rightly said that when Channel 4 was created, the independent production sector did not really exist at all. The indie sector was created by Channel 4 and the fact that Channel 4, as a broadcaster, commissioned all its content from the indie sector.
As a result, we now have one of the most successful independent production sectors in the world, which to some extent does not now need the support of Channel 4; it is making content for all the broadcasters, in this country and beyond. Nevertheless, it is the Government’s decision that, to provide Channel 4 with a more sustainable revenue base moving forward, we should allow it to acquire an in-house production capacity if it so chooses. We talked to the independent production sector at length and felt it was appropriate that in those circumstances we should increase the independent production quota to 35%, in order to provide some underpinning of the independent production sector. We hope that that will ensure the continued sustainability of the independent production sector at the same time as giving a Channel 4 an additional ability to diversify its sources of revenue.
There have been a number of contributions from north of the border during this debate, particularly around Gaelic broadcasting. One measure in the Bill for the first time makes the provision of services in the minority languages across the United Kingdom part of the public service remit. That did not exist before. It is for Ofcom to decide an appropriate level of provision, but there is now a requirement that there should be such provision.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
I hear what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but should there not be something a bit stronger and more stringent in the Bill than a decision by Ofcom further down the road, and should it not be written into law, as several Members have asked?
Sir John Whittingdale
Well, I would say to the hon. Gentleman that clause 1 makes clear that there should be a significant quantity of
“audiovisual content that is in, or mainly in, a recognised regional or minority language”.
Kirsty Blackman
Just to correct the Minister, it does not say “significant quantity”; it says “sufficient quantity”, but there is no definition of “sufficient”. We are concerned about the fact that that word has not been defined. We want a reasonable amount of Gaelic content to be available.
Sir John Whittingdale
I apologise to the hon. Lady. She is absolutely right: it does say a
“sufficient quantity of audiovisual content”.
That will be a matter for Ofcom to rule on. MG Alba already gets support—
Ian Blackford
I am grateful to the Minister, who I appreciate is trying to be helpful. What we are asking for specifically is that protection in law be given to Gaelic in the way it is given to other languages, such as Welsh. I hope that that can be done with cross-party consensus, which is what we have done over the course of the past few decades in this place.
Sir John Whittingdale
I share the right hon. Gentleman’s wish to see continuing provision both for the Welsh language and indeed for Gaelic. I would, however, draw a contrast. Some have suggested that there should be some kind of equity in the support given to the Welsh language and to Gaelic. Of course, S4C receives funding from the licence fee, but that is in recognition of the fact that there are nearly 1 million Welsh speakers in the United Kingdom. MG Alba gets some support from the Scottish Government, which is welcome, but there are approaching 100,000 people in Scotland who speak Gaelic, so there is a big contrast between the two.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
There is a reason there have been so few Gaelic speakers over the centuries: Acts of Parliament, from the Education (Scotland) Act 1872 onwards—and even before. The point is that we are looking for redress and hope, not for more of the same. I mean that in a good spirit; I hope it does not come across otherwise, because I know that the Minister is not that type of person. I am trying to communicate to him the urgency of the real need, expressed by a number of Members, for that kind of support.
Sir John Whittingdale
I am afraid that all I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that the Government recognise the importance of continuing support. We expect the BBC to continue providing a channel in Gaelic, in the form of BBC Alba, and we welcome the fact that MG Alba produces content through an arrangement with the BBC and with the support of the Scottish Government. We have now, for the first time, put into the public service remit the requirement to provide
“a sufficient quantity of audiovisual content”.
That is a significant step forward, even if it does not go quite as far as SNP Members would like.
The provisions covering radio have been rightly welcomed and described by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), who is an acknowledged expert in this area. We have worked closely with the radio sector, and I think that the audio review identified the need to ensure the protection of radio services as more and more people adopt smart speakers.
A number of hon. Members raised local television, of which the Government remain supportive. However, at the moment, local television is not available through apps, so including it in the provisions for prominence was not appropriate, but we will of course keep the situation under review, should it evolve in future. The Government are consulting on the future of local television.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) raised a specific point about the regulation of video-on-demand streaming services. The Government completely share her wish to see adequate protection for children. Having sufficient protections in place will be part of the new requirements on the major streaming services. She is right to praise the BBFC. I have worked with the BBFC for many years, going right back to James Ferman, who for 25 years was its director. It is absolutely true that the BBFC is recognised as expert in this field. I very much welcome that a number of streamers have chosen to adopt the BBFC to carry out their age ratings, including Netflix and Amazon.
The Government’s objective, however, is to ensure that protection is in place, rather than necessarily to specify that it has to be done by the BBFC. It will be left to Ofcom to oversee that, and it already has a lot of experience in this area. It enforces the broadcasting code, which also requires age-appropriate broadcasting. As my hon. Friend rightly said, that was traditionally via the watershed, although that is now changing with the move to on-demand TV. Ofcom also undertakes other protections such as parental controls and so on, so it is not just age rating. I entirely share her view that the BBFC does an excellent job, and I hope that all services will consider using it when reaching decisions, but the Government are not at the point of wishing to mandate that at this time.
Jackie Doyle-Price
I utterly appreciate what my right hon. Friend is saying, and I can see why the Government and Ofcom do not want to be overly prescriptive about how this regulation is done, as long as the content is well understood. Will he just reflect on the fact that this set of labels is well understood by the public? Everyone knows what a U is, and everyone knows what an 18 is. In that sense, it would be an effective vehicle to establish that people understand the content.
Sir John Whittingdale
In determining whether the requirements are met, Ofcom will have to take into account whether the rating is easily understood by viewers. Even if that is not necessarily the BBFC’s triangles and particular age ratings, it will nevertheless need to meet those requirements and ensure that viewers can easily see what is an appropriate age for that particular content. I am a viewer of Disney+ along with the other services, and I agree with my hon. Friend. Disney+ has some content that is highly appropriate for children, but it has other content that is perhaps less so.
I move on to the repeal of section 40, which is of concern to a number of Members. I very much welcome the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who served with me on the Select Committee when we carried out the inquiries into phone hacking. I hope I am not being too immodest in saying that the Committee was responsible for exposing phone hacking, and none of the events that followed would have occurred had the Select Committee not persisted in our summoning of representatives of News International, as it was at that time, and pursuing that inquiry. It led to the police investigations and ultimately to the establishment of the Leveson inquiry.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) was right to set out the historical background to the establishment of the Leveson inquiry. However, the one thing that he did not cover, which I recall very well, is that the intention behind section 40 was to put pressure on one or two newspapers that might have been standing out against seeking the approval of the recognised regulator. What nobody anticipated when section 40 was established was that every single national publication would say that they were not willing to comply with that requirement. It was not just the tabloids or the red tops; it was The Guardian, The Independent and the Financial Times. No national newspaper was willing to comply with the Government’s proposals under the royal charter, and that did change things, because it made the system unworkable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) —to whom I am grateful for taking over the APPG on media freedom—is right to point out that campaigning organisations for press freedom such as Reporters Without Borders were equally critical of the Government’s proposals on section 40 and have been campaigning for its repeal. The Government reached the conclusion that the system had not worked and should be repealed, and we therefore put that in the Conservative party manifesto of 2017. It was repeated in the Conservative party manifesto of 2019, and I am delighted that we will now put that commitment into effect by repealing section 40.
I have seldom agreed with the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), but on this occasion, I thought he made one or two extremely good points. He is absolutely right to highlight the digital divide. We are very conscious that as more and more people access TV content through streaming services and via the internet, there is a group who have not done so. Several Members asked whether the Government can make a commitment to the continuation of Freeview beyond 2034. The Government would not consider switching off digital terrestrial television unless we had reached the point where the overwhelming majority were no longer using it to access TV. We are very conscious of that group in the population who still rely on traditional Freeview, and that will be in our thoughts.
The right hon. Member was also right to pay tribute to news reporting from around the world and to point out that it does not get enough attention. I was delighted to be able to attend the Society of Editors’ media freedom awards recently, where Sky received two awards for its reporter Stuart Ramsay’s reports from Myanmar about the civil war raging there. That is a terrible conflict that does not get enough attention. The right hon. Member is right that it is important that both PSBs and other providers continue to bring us reports from right around the world about things that we would otherwise be unaware of.
Lastly, I welcome the right hon. Member’s stressing the importance of local newspapers. I have been deeply concerned about the decline of local newspapers for many years. I am delighted that the BBC’s local democracy reporting service, which was established following the last charter, continues to support local newspapers, and we continue to look for other ways to support them.
This has been an excellent debate. I look forward to working with all Members and the Opposition as we take the Bill into Committee. I am delighted to commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Media Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Media Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 14 December 2023.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Mark Fletcher.)
Question agreed to.
Media Bill (Money)
King’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Media Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Mark Fletcher.)
Question agreed to.
Media Bill (Ways and Means)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Media Bill, it is expedient to authorise:
(1) the charging of fees under the Act; and
(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Mark Fletcher.)
Question agreed to.
Business without Debate
Scotland: Further Independence Referendum
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
I am going to begin where I left off on 1 February this year when I moved my Scotland (Self-Determination) Bill. It is important to establish how far this Government and the party of opposition have moved from the principle of equity of all peoples of this alleged Union of equals, and ultimately against the democratic will of the people of Scotland. In this place in 1889, the equality of UK partner countries was asserted by none other than William Ewart Gladstone MP, when he said that
“if I am to suppose a case in which Scotland unanimously, or by a clearly preponderating voice, were to make the demand on the United Parliament to be treated, not only on the same principle, but in the same manner as Ireland, I could not deny the title of Scotland to urge such a claim.”—[Official Report, 9 April 1889; Vol. 335, c. 101-102.]
That principle of equity was at the heart of my private Member’s Bill, and was again articulated in amendment (j) to the recent King’s Speech, tabled in my name. Each was consistent with the motion passed by this House that endorsed the principles of the 1989 claim of right, which acknowledged
“the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs”.
However inured this House has since become to the aspirations of the people of Scotland to live in a normal independent country, support for independence is holding steady at around 50% without a single leaflet being dropped through a letterbox. That number is rising steadily, and will continue to climb. The independence genie is not for going back into the bottle.
Of course, that growing support requires a mechanism through which to express its effect and place beyond doubt the will of the people. My Scotland (Self-Determination) Bill is explicit about the conditions necessary to bring that mechanism into play, and is clear that the power to legislate for a referendum requires a democratic mandate from the Scottish public. Since 2014, that criterion has been met in successive general elections to the Scottish Parliament, most recently in 2021, when a majority of MSPs were elected on a manifesto commitment to deliver an independence referendum. This evening, I intend to set out how that must now happen, and how it can be put beyond the wiles of intransigent London-led parties for good.
One of the most invigorating aspects of the 2014 independence referendum campaign was the explosion of interest and engagement in all aspects of policy, and the healthy workplace, coffee house and pub debates across Scotland. Back then, as a movement, we were unafraid to have differences of opinion and to propose various solutions to decades-old problems. Most importantly, we spoke truth to the distortions of the Unionist Better Together “no” campaign. That appetite for truth and facts is something we must rediscover. Our movement must demand that if we are to make progress towards independence.
The first issue we must come to terms with is that another section 30 independence referendum is not going to happen for the foreseeable future. As a consequence of the Scottish Lord Advocate’s folly in arguing a poorly crafted question, the UK Supreme Court made it clear that in the absence of an equitable mechanism for self-determination across these islands—such as the one I have proposed—any referendum on Scottish independence is a matter reserved to London.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Ind)
In some ways, the Supreme Court’s judgment was perhaps helpful. It said in paragraph 81—this is the reason the Court stopped the referendum—that even if the referendum did not have any legal powers, because the UK Government had not signed up to it, the ballot box would carry authority, which would force the UK Government to recognise that authority and therefore cause a change to the Union. By stopping the referendum, the Supreme Court has now opened another avenue for Scotland, which we will maybe touch on later. That, of course, is using elections.
Neale Hanvey
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and that is a key element of my contribution to this debate.
Put plainly, a section 30 order to temporarily transfer those powers to the Scottish Parliament is entirely in the gift of Westminster. That underscores the unavoidable truth that our Parliament is in reality part of the fabric of the British state and is increasingly being squeezed under the heel of Whitehall. Securing mandates to ask for a referendum on independence only to be rebuffed is now the equivalent of Monty Python’s parrot that has ceased to be. It is as stone dead as a mandate can be. The Tories have become increasingly bolder in this regard, and while they persist with their assertion that this is a voluntary Union, they refuse to set out the means of withdrawing consent. This Government have also made it clear that they will plunder Scotland as a cash cow until the wind stops blowing. Westminster plans to rob our resources at its leisure. There is no way, even if the First Minister were to ask, that the Prime Minster would agree to an independence referendum in his final months in office.
In a Westminster Hall debate on this subject, the Minister responding this evening claimed that
“the benefits of being part of the United Kingdom have never been more apparent.”
Where is the benefit for the one in three households in Scotland living in fuel poverty? Where are the benefits for the north-east of Scotland when the Acorn carbon capture and storage project still waits for a go-ahead from the UK Government? The Minister proclaimed that Scotland has
“one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world.”—[Official Report, 30 November 2022; Vol. 723, c. 384WH.]
But Scotland remains powerless to stop the plunder.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
When the hon. Member speaks about opportunities to improve the lives of people in Scotland, we could of course do that through our NHS, through our education system, through our justice system and through local government. All of those issues are devolved fully to the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, but they are of course ignored by the SNP and Green Government—the nationalist Government—because they are always focused on independence, rather than on the real priorities of the people of Scotland.
Neale Hanvey
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I would be the last person to speak for the SNP Government in Scotland. I refer back to my party leader’s excellent tenure as First Minister, and the meaningful difference he made to the lives of the people of Scotland.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
This comparison with a devolved Scotland in the United Kingdom is as silly as comparing the performance of Northern Ireland and Stormont in the United Kingdom with Dublin and an independent Ireland. Ireland has a €10 billion surplus this year, rising to €20 billion next year. The UK, with a deficit of around £170 billion, is unable to build small hospitals on small Hebridean islands, whereas Ireland is funding nurses over the border.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am not sure who the hon. Gentleman was intervening on there.
Neale Hanvey
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am equally—[Interruption.] Yes, my hon. Friend has put the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) in his place.
Anyway, the Treasury is happy to siphon off £11 billion in tax receipts from oil and gas this year alone, and we are sending south 124 billion kWh of energy, which is enough to power Scotland’s needs fifteen times over. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) set out in a Westminster Hall debate this morning, with this Union it is all pooling and absolutely no sharing. I ask the Minister: where is the evidence of a share of Scotland’s energy bounty?
As for an incoming UK Labour Government, now bedecked in Union Jackery—the Tories will like this bit—the Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that his priority is continuity with Tory economic and social policy, and he intends to continue London’s plunder of Scottish assets. Do not be confused: it was British Labour that first hid the truth of the McCrone report from the people of Scotland—a truth kept secret by successive Labour and Tory Administrations for 30 years. Neither party has protected our economy or our communities, so why should we trust any of them now?
They each may persist with the claim they have
“no selfish strategic or economic interest”
in the north of Ireland, but we know the opposite is true of Scotland, where the strategy is wholly economic and top-to-tail selfish.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am sitting here as a determined, strong-willed, proud Unionist who believes that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is always better together. Northern Ireland is part of that, and I very much wish to see Scotland be part of that, so the hon. Gentleman and I will disagree. Does he accept that when it comes to the British Government, the amount of money that comes from here to keep Scotland going can never be ignored? He talks about the trade downwards, but the trade is also upwards and that cannot be ignored when it comes to the financial implications. Better off together, always.
Neale Hanvey
The hon. Gentleman hit the nail on the head when he said that we will absolutely not agree on anything he said.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
In answer to that point, the Republic of Ireland is costing the UK nothing after leaving, therefore if Scotland goes it will save you a fortune—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Stop intervening on Mr Hanvey to intervene on the person who intervened on Mr Hanvey.
Neale Hanvey
You can’t knock his enthusiasm, Mr Deputy Speaker. Neither the Labour nor the Conservative parties have protected our economy, and any fantasy that pleas for more devolution will be accommodated by Labour are pie in the sky. North of Tyne Mayor Jamie Driscoll recently accused the Labour Opposition of censoring, diluting, and striking down key recommendations contained in a report by former Prime Minister and MP for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, Gordon Brown, on the constitution and further devolution across the UK. Those forlorn attempts to prevent the “Break-up of Britain” by refusing to devolve power away from London will serve only to boost the case for Scottish independence. Mr Brown’s attempt to reframe the debate to one of
“change within Britain versus change by leaving Britain”
has been utterly dismantled by his party leader and increased the urgency for independence. All that leads us to the position where Scotland urgently needs a robust strategy that not only deals with the facts of the day, but overcomes that central Westminster hurdle of the denial of a democratic process.
The Alba party, and our Scotland United colleague, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), believe that every single Scottish and UK general election must now be used to secure majority support for independence negotiations to commence. That could, and should, include the triggering of an early Holyrood election.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The hon. Member has hit the nail on the head. The referendum door is slammed shut, and there are three ways that the SNP Government at Holyrood could trigger a plebiscite on Scottish independence. Of course, the resignation of the First Minister was very awkward and difficult, but a majority of two thirds of MSPs can vote, or by using section 31A of the Scotland Act 1998 the two-thirds majority can be altered to a simple majority. That was not communicated properly in light of the Supreme Court, and those who did not communicate it properly should have set the record straight or at least apologised. I think they should set the record straight so that MPs, MSPs and the wider public clearly understand that point.
Neale Hanvey
I thank my hon. Friend for that important piece of information. It underscores that there is need for much more robust and firm action from the Scottish independence movement, to push forward the case for independence. As I said recently, independence will not fall into our laps. It is something that we have to pursue with vigour and absolute determination.
That approach reinstates the position of the national movement prior to devolution. As with all democratic expressions, the threshold would be a simple majority of votes cast for all independence parties—a threshold that was achieved on the last list vote for the Scottish Parliament. That approach is supported by the expert legal opinion I obtained from highly distinguished academic and legal practitioner in international law, Professor Robert McCorquodale. He said that
“the people of Scotland are distinct within the UK and have a right to self-determination.”,
and subsequently that
“the right to self-determination applies to the people of Scotland.”
He went on to state:
As the people of Scotland are a people for the purposes of the right to self-determination, they can exercise it. The choice of the means to exercise it is for the people to decide and not for the state.”
Furthermore, he explained that the UK, as a signatory to multilateral international human rights treaties, has
“expressly accepted that the right to self-determination is a human right”
and
“not just as an international legal principle—which is binding under international law on all states.”
These are not obscure or arcane points of law; they are precise and purposeful.
I understand why the UK Government do not want to hear the facts that Professor McCorquodale set out, but I cannot comprehend why others are steadfast in their refusal even to acknowledge that landmark legal opinion charting the correct lawful and democratic course to self-determination and independence.
The Alba party’s amendment to the recent King’s Speech repeated the democratic principles contained in my Scotland (Self-Determination) Bill for the recognition of the right of the people of Scotland to self-determination by amending the Scotland Act 1998. That would transfer the power to legislate for a Scottish independence referendum to the Scottish Parliament.
Let me deal with the supposed gold standard of a section 30 order. Such an order on its own is not a gold standard; it was the process of negotiation and agreement that led to the signing of the Edinburgh agreement that was the gold standard. Let me be clear that any democratic vote in favour of self-determination is the only standard required, providing that that is the clear and unclouded purpose of any such vote—unless of course the UK Government do not want to recognise democratic elections as legitimate expressions of the will of the people.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The hon. Member is making an excellent point. An unscheduled Holyrood election would precisely be in that category. It would make the world stop for a moment and see whether Scotland was to choose independence. That power rests with MSPs at Holyrood if they want to do that.
Neale Hanvey
The hon. Gentleman is making really important and valid observations. Those are the key tactics that we need to adopt.
Whichever UK Prime Minister comes next, while they may have every technical right to stifle, subdue or ignore the Scottish Parliament, the British state has no locus to limit the inalienable human rights of the people of Scotland or the march of our nation. Yet in this Union, that is precisely where Scotland finds its democracy —denied. That flies in the face of commitments given. In Margaret Thatcher’s memoirs, she said of Scotland:
“As a nation, they have an undoubted right to national self-determination”.
John Major, when Prime Minister, said of Scotland that
“no nation could be held irrevocably in a Union against its will”.
The commitments contained in the Smith commission’s agreement, which was signed by all Scotland’s main political parties, said that
“nothing in this report prevents Scotland becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so choose.”
Scotland will only ever become an independent country as and when the majority of the people of Scotland choose that path, yet that requires a democratic mechanism that is constitutional and satisfies international legal precedent. From Gladstone to Thatcher, no one until now has had the gall to seek to constrain the Scottish people’s democratic right to self-determination. I have made this point many times, but it bears repeating. Democracy is not a single event; it is a continually evolving process that demands opinions be tested and retested regularly.
I anticipate that the Minister will reel off the usual rebuttals and crow about how we have had a referendum, but he should know this. As an option, a referendum has been put beyond reach by Westminster and Whitehall, but Scotland will adapt. Each and every election from hereon in can and will provide a platform on which the people of Scotland can have their say on their consent to this Union. Consistent with Professor McCorquodale’s opinion, that would pave the way to where
“a clear majority of people representing Scotland… indicate their approval”
for independence,
“but it should not be done by the Scottish Parliament, as the latter is within UK domestic law. This could be done, for example, through a convention of elected and diverse representatives from across Scotland with a clear majority in favour.”
Scotland’s separate constitutional tradition is best summed up by Lord Cooper, in the case of MacCormick v. Lord Advocate:
“The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law.”
The UK Government face a choice: give serious consideration to bringing forward legislation for an equitable mechanism for self-determination, as exists on the island of Ireland, or face that test at every election in future. In international law according to human rights declarations, the decision on Scotland is the purview of the people of Scotland, not of any London party. In the constitutional tradition of popular sovereignty in our great country, it is the people who remain sovereign, and it will be the people of Scotland who decide.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (John Lamont)
Yet again, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) has decided to use valuable debating time in this place to focus on the constitution. Yet again, this time could have been used to raise issues of immediate importance to Scotland’s future. Yet again, his constituents, and my constituents in the Scottish borders, will be disappointed.
The Government’s position on a further independence referendum is well known.
John Lamont
I want to make some progress, and I will give way another time. [Interruption.] The hon. Member has only just sat down, and I will deal with his points in due course.
People across Scotland rightly expect to see both their Governments working together. Our relentless focus should be on the issues that matter to them, their families, and their communities. Scotland’s bright future as part of the United Kingdom is better served by focusing on tackling the cost of living, and on growing our economy so that everyone has access to the opportunities, skills, and jobs that they need. [Interruption.] Hon. Members on the Opposition Benches shake their heads, but I know that those are the priorities of my own constituents in the borders. It is disappointing how disconnected those Members are from the priorities of the constituents they represent.
When it first came to power, the SNP set out to emulate the Labour party of old, and it certainly has succeeded. The nationalist movement is now even more divided than the far left. The SNP and Alba compete to see who can be the most reckless in their demands. They are constantly trying to get one up on each other on independence. But it does not matter who is pushing separation—Humza Yousaf or Alex Salmond. Scotland does not want it.
Unlike the divisive nationalists, we Unionists on the Government Benches are all about bringing people together. As hard as it might be, let me try to find a point of unity with the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath. Perhaps we can agree that Scotland wants to be free—free of the SNP. As a member of the Alba party, surely he can agree that we are fed up with Humza Yousaf, Michael Matheson’s ever-changing stories and their endless incompetence and deceit.
While Scottish Conservative MPs are securing millions of pounds-worth of investment in our constituencies through UK levelling-up funding, elected members of the hon. Member’s party want a giant independence thermometer to be constructed somewhere in Scotland. I wish I was joking. The independence thermometer is the brainwave of the Alba party’s most recent recruit from the SNP, Ash Regan MSP. Personally, I would rather see taxpayers’ money spent on schools and hospitals, but if the hon. Member insists, will he tell us where he wants the independence thermometer to be located? Has he lobbied the Chancellor for funding for this ridiculous proposal? Will the thermometer be made of mercury, or is that where he got the idea from—another planet?
Neale Hanvey
I thank the Minister for giving way. However, I need to go back to my first request for an intervention. He was complaining about using valuable time in the Chamber for a debate on the constitution, but it is his Government who are finishing early! It is his Government who have just launched a new King’s Speech and cannot fill the parliamentary programme with enough business to keep the Chamber going. I hope he will correct the record that it is not me who is impeding Parliament doing its business; it is a lack of action from his own Government.
John Lamont
What a load of baloney! This Government have an action-packed programme set out in the King’s Speech. We have an ambitious programme for Scotland and all parts of the United Kingdom. We are focused on the issues that matter to the communities we represent, not on endlessly debating another independence referendum.
The UK Government remain as determined, focused and committed as ever to getting on with the job for the people of Scotland. That is best demonstrated by what we are doing on the ground. The UK Government are delivering £2.7 billion of levelling-up investment across all parts of Scotland. As hon. Members on the nationalist Benches know, that investment includes: £1.5 billion for 12 Scottish city and regional growth deals; £160 million for two investment zones in the Glasgow city region and north-east Scotland; £52 million for two freeports, focused at the Inverness and Cromarty Firth and Firth of Forth regions; and £817 million for locally-driven plans and priorities, regenerating town centres, improving vital infrastructure, supporting businesses, and spreading skills and opportunities to communities everywhere.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for giving way. He mentioned the Unionists on the Conservative Benches. I am a Unionist on the Opposition Benches, as are my party. It is clear that the polls in Scotland are indicating less of an interest in independence than there was. Is that because the realisation of those in Scotland is that they see their future within this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—better together? Is it because the financial benefits of Westminster and the Government here to Scotland, and indeed to Wales and Northern Ireland, are so good they would never really want to leave?
John Lamont
The hon. Member makes very valid points, but the key point is that support for independence and another independence referendum in Scotland is falling. The voters in Scotland, certainly in my constituency in the Scottish Borders, are getting wise to the failures of the Scottish SNP Government in Edinburgh, and they recognise the benefits of remaining part of a strong United Kingdom. That is because the UK Government and the Scottish Government are working together on so many areas to make our communities better—driving economic growth, supporting the Scottish economy and delivering for Scotland.
I can give some further examples. We can see it through the Scottish Seafood Industry Action Group, where the UK Government regularly engage with the Scottish Government and the Scottish seafood industry to consider a range of important issues, including access to labour, energy costs and export opportunities. We see it through the fiscal framework review, where the UK and Scottish Governments reached a fair and responsible agreement. Both Governments reached a compromise for the benefit of the Scottish economy, while keeping us on track with our fiscal objectives. And we are investing more than £100 million in Scotland’s innovation economy through the strength in places fund and Glasgow innovation accelerator. Our close collaboration with the Scottish Government in this area was further underlined by the agreement signed between UK Research and Innovation and Scottish Enterprise earlier this month, which aims to streamline innovation support for Scottish businesses.
Levelling up is already making a real difference to all regions of Scotland. It is bringing advanced manufacturing jobs to the Glasgow city region, data driven innovation jobs to south-east Scotland, and life sciences jobs to the highlands and north-east Scotland. It is saving the community on Fair Isle with a new ferry, bringing Clydesdale horses back to Pollok Country Park, and revitalising town and city centres from Greenock to Aberdeen, and Cumbernauld to Elgin. It is helping communities to protect and restore their treasured buildings and facilities, whether it is the last pub in Lochranza on Arran, or a permanent home for St David’s brass band in Gorebridge. [Interruption.] The Members on the nationalist Benches shout those initiatives down. This is funding from the United Kingdom Government going into communities the length and breadth of Scotland—something that they seem to strongly oppose. I am disappointed by that and I know the communities they represent will be disappointed by it too.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
Before the Minister gets down to the mugs and glasses that we provide for the cub scouts, along with any other crumbs from the table, let me make this point. He mentioned “two Governments” in Scotland. What inefficiency! Norway, Ireland, Iceland and Denmark have one Government each, and they are outperforming Scotland in the United Kingdom. If Scotland is doing so well in the United Kingdom, why do Norway, Ireland, Iceland and Denmark not want to join the UK? It is because they know that it is not a good place to be. They look at Scotland and Wales and they see places that are doing better, just as they are doing better. If the campaign for Scottish independence is doing as badly as the Minister says, why not hold your referendum now? You’d win, surely, wouldn’t you? But you know full well that when the Scottish people engage, independence will happen!
John Lamont
The hon. Member speaks of “crumbs from the table”, but this is significant investment going into communities across Scotland. Scotland is receiving hundreds of millions of pounds through our levelling-up agenda and a record block grant amounting to more than £40 billion, but SNP Members oppose and fight every bit of the investment that this United Kingdom Government are making there. I am saddened by that, and I know that the residents and communities that the hon. Member and his colleagues represent will also be disappointed by the hostile and negative response to investment that has been used to improve the communities that we represent.
Together, the UK Government’s interventions will drive innovation and long-term economic growth, restore pride in place, and help cities, towns and villages in every part of Scotland to flourish. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath referred to
“the sovereign right of the Scottish people”
to determine their future, and I suppose that that reference to self-determination gets to the nub of the debate that he has initiated. In 2014, the year of the referendum on Scottish independence, there was consensus between the UK Government and the Scottish Government—both Scotland’s Governments—and there was consensus in civic society in Scotland and consensus across the population of Scotland, which is why both Governments agreed to the referendum. The ultimate act of self-determination, of course, came in September 2014, when, in record numbers, the people of Scotland turned out to vote to remain part of the United Kingdom.
Douglas Ross
My hon. Friend has given a strong defence of the Union, as he always does in his ministerial role and on behalf of his constituents. Would he agree that the nationalists have had more plans for Scottish independence than Michael Matheson has had excuses for his £11,000 iPad bill? And just like that £11,000 iPad bill and their different plans, none of them are honest, none of them are convincing and none of them have the support of the Scottish people.
John Lamont
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We hear about plans for referendums endlessly from SNP Members. I just wish they had a clear plan for ferries in Scotland or a clear plan for Scotland’s NHS and Scotland’s schools, but no—referendums, referendums, referendums are all we hear about and all they talk about.
I would like to finish by reminding those on the nationalist Benches yet again that our different views on the constitution should not distract both of Scotland’s Governments from working together to tackle the sheer challenge of delivering growth, easing pressures on the cost of living and supporting the NHS. The Scottish Parliament is one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world, and we believe that the devolution settlement strikes the right balance. This United Kingdom Government are committed to devolution, and we are working collaboratively and constructively with the devolved Administrations, including the Scottish Government, to deliver better outcomes for the citizens of Scotland and the entirety of the United Kingdom.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Amendment) (Equal Treatment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023
Draft Pensions (Pension Protection Fund Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023
Draft Pensions Act 2004 (Amendment) (Pension Protection Fund Compensation) Regulations 2023
Draft Pensions Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010 (Amendment) (Equal Treatment by Occupational Pension Schemes) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Paul Maynard)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Amendment) (Equal Treatment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the draft Pensions (Pension Protection Fund Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023, the draft Pensions Act 2004 (Amendment) (Pension Protection Fund Compensation) Regulations 2023 and the draft Pensions Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010 (Amendment) (Equal Treatment by Occupational Pension Schemes) Regulations 2023.
Paul Maynard
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George.
The regulations were laid in the House on 18 September 2023 and are compatible with the European convention on human rights. We have four instruments: two relating to the Allonby and Walker judgments, and a similar set of two relating to the Hampshire judgment. I must make it clear that Allonby is being restated in relation solely to the impact of guaranteed minimum pensions legislation from 17 May 1990 onwards.
The well-known Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 allows the UK to reassert the sovereignty of Parliament. Where required, the UK Government are now able more easily to amend, revoke or replace retained EU law. After 31 December, certain retained EU law addressed in the three court cases I mentioned will cease applying. Two of those cases, Walker and Allonby, are about equality law for pension schemes, and the other, Hampshire, is about pension protection for those who, unfortunately, find themselves in the Pension Protection Fund, which is a compensation scheme.
I have decided to restate the law addressed in those cases because two of them are about the effects of EU equality law for pensions schemes, and the other is about protecting people’s old-age benefits when they find themselves in the PPF. It is important that any ambiguity is removed for occupational pension schemes and that we ensure there is equality in the outcomes for pension benefits.
Let me go through the judgments as speedily as I can, without going into great detail. The first judgment, Allonby, is about the right to pension benefits paid on an equal basis between men and women, where discrimination has arisen in an occupational pension scheme because of legislation on guaranteed minimum pensions. The second judgment, Walker, is about the pension rights on which survivor benefits are based, where a member is in a same-sex marriage or civil partnership.
The Allonby amendments are relatively straightforward: they are about the right to equal treatment between men and women in the absence of a direct real-life comparator to show discrimination, where the discrimination has arisen in an occupational pension scheme because of legislation on guaranteed minimum pensions. How we get to that point requires some more explanation.
First, guaranteed minimum pensions are unequal for men and women. That can result in a different amounts of occupational pension benefits being paid because GMPs are paid to women at the age of 60 and to men at the age of 65. Secondly, the 1990 Barber judgment found that pension benefits must be paid to men and women on an equal basis for pensionable service from May 1990 onwards. That means that pension schemes are required to equalise pension benefits to correct the unequal effect caused by members having a GMP.
Thirdly, the European Court of Justice judgment in the case of Allonby in 2004 means that it is not necessary for someone who brings an equal pay claim to be able to point to a real-life comparator in relation to such discrimination. For example, a man who was employed as a dustman—a role predominantly performed in the past by men—would not now need to point to a real-life female comparator who was being treated differently to demonstrate that his pension should be equalised to take account of the unequal effect of the GMP rules. A notional comparator could instead be used to show whether he would have received a higher pension if he had been a woman, because of the GMP rules.
Until the end of this year, the Allonby judgment overrides the need for an opposite-sex comparator in our equality legislation, but we of course want and need schemes to equalise for the differences between men and women resulting from GMP legislation. That is why we are amending equality legislation to ensure that the requirement to equalise occupational pension benefits as a result of GMP does not fall away where there is no real-life opposite-sex comparator.
Continuing on the theme of equality, the Walker case was about equal treatment on the grounds of sexual orientation in occupational pension schemes. The Supreme Court ruled that the Equality Act could not permit Mr Walker’s scheme to restrict the survivor benefits payable to his husband to only those based on pension rights earned since December 2005—the date civil partnerships were introduced.
The restriction in the Equality Act had previously meant that a person in a same-sex marriage or civil partnership who had worked their entire working life and built up an occupational pension could leave their surviving spouse or civil partner survivor only benefits relating to pensionable service from December 2005—potentially only a few years of their working life.
For example, someone in a civil partnership who retired in 2015, having built 45 years of occupational pension rights, could find that their surviving civil partner was entitled to only 10 years of survivor benefit rights. Mr Walker challenged that unequal treatment and won.
The changes we are making will mean that legislation will not allow schemes to restrict the pension rights that are used to provide survivor benefits for survivors in a same-sex legal relationship to only those earned after December 2005. Survivor benefits are important to so many people and help provide reassurance that a member’s survivor will be provided for, should the worst happen. That is why it is important that we reflect the Walker judgment in the Equality Act.
Moving on, the Hampshire judgment provides protection in the event of employer insolvency. The regulations retain the effects of the judgment in domestic legislation and remove redundant references to the Pension Protection Fund compensation cap from it.
Briefly, by way of context, Mr Hampshire took legal action in the domestic and European courts against the Pension Protection Fund, because under the PPF’s rules, his benefits were substantially reduced. He was under his scheme’s normal pension age when his employer became insolvent. The European Court ruled that former employees must receive at least 50% of the value of their pension rights in the event of their employer’s insolvency.
There was further litigation in the domestic courts—the Hughes judgment—which concluded with the UK’s Court of Appeal upholding the High Court’s ruling that the cap on Pension Protection Fund compensation constituted unlawful age discrimination. The cap previously applied to individuals below their scheme’s normal pension age when their employer became insolvent.
The Pension Protection Fund is now identifying its members and members of the financial assistance scheme affected by the Hampshire judgment, increasing their payments and paying arrears, where appropriate, to comply with the terms of the judgment. It is also uncapping the compensation payments of its affected members and backdating arrears.
In practice, most PPF members already receive more than the 50% minimum established by the Hampshire judgment and few were affected by the compensation cap. As a matter of fairness, however, the Government have decided to retain the effects of the Hampshire judgment beyond the sunset date. That means that all members of eligible pension schemes affected by the judgment—not just those with an entitlement before the sunset date—can be reassured that they will receive at least 50% of the value of their original pension benefits in the event of their employer’s insolvency. To tidy up the legislation, the regulations also remove redundant references to the Pension Protection Fund compensation cap, which no longer exists. That will improve the legislation and reflect the High Court’s ruling.
The regulations will give reassurance to the pensions industry and to members of defined benefit occupational pension schemes from 31 December. In practice, nothing will change in relation to the Allonby, Walker and Hampshire judgments. It is important that pension scheme members are treated fairly and equitably, regardless of sexual orientation, sex or age. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Sir George. I thank the Minister for his explanation of the statutory instruments and welcome him to his place. I look forward to working collaboratively with him on issues where there is cross-party consensus, and I believe there is much we will agree on in regard to pensions.
Today’s statutory instruments are wholly necessary to maintain the same legislative framework following the expiry of certain EU laws on 31 December, so we will not oppose them and my speech will be short. Action is needed given that, under section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the principles of EU law will sunset at the end of this year. The purpose of the regulations is to ensure that the effects of the Hampshire and Hughes judgments will be preserved in domestic legislation. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed that the regulations are intended to ensure only that everything stays in its current state after the relevant EU laws are sunsetted. Will any businesses need to make any adjustments?
I also want to note some concern that the regulations are being brought forward only weeks away from 31 December, when the relevant EU laws cease to apply. Has all the necessary EU legislation within the Minister’s brief now been enacted in domestic law ahead of that deadline?
As I said at the outset, the regulations are necessary and we will not oppose them. It is my understanding that they ensure simply that there is no ambiguity in this area when the equivalent EU laws are sunsetted at the end of this year. However, I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to the specific points I have raised.
Paul Maynard
May I also welcome the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough? I am sure I will enjoy working with her. She made three points, and I am hoping that a note about the third might be coming my way—time will tell. She is right that the changes are quite distinct in and of themselves. They apply already, so the sector does not have to do anything new to reflect them. It has already been reflecting them since the judgments, quite some time ago.
On the timing, one of my first observations in this role has been the absolute avalanche of evidence—calls for evidence, consultations and consultation responses. The pensions industry is swamped, and finding people to respond to these things must be a growth industry. The hon. Lady is right that it has taken some time for the judgments to come to the House. Many of the judgments, of course, took place way back last decade, but the court system itself takes quite some time. When their final application is eventually decided, we have to start consulting on how to apply them within the private pensions industry that we have to rely on to deliver them; it is not a matter of pressing a button at the Department for Work and Pensions.
Finally, the hon. Lady asked whether there were any more retained EU laws to deal with. My understanding is that we have now completed our trawl, and I do not expect any more to come my way. Should the situation turn out to be any different, I will write to her. But I think I am right—I would have been tapped on the shoulder if I had been wrong.
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. We have had a useful and helpful initial interchange. As I said in my opening speech, these are important equality protections. We do not want them to disappear because of sunsetting. They are important and came about for good reason in the first place. I hope all Members will be happy that we are to retain them.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Pensions (Pension Protection Fund Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Pensions (Pension Protection Fund Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023.
Draft Pensions Act 2004 (Amendment) (Pension Protection Fund Compensation) Regulations 2023
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Pensions Act 2004 (Amendment) (Pension Protection Fund Compensation) Regulations 2023.
Draft Pensions Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010 (Amendment) (Equal Treatment by Occupational Pension Schemes) Regulations 2023
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Pensions Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010 (Amendment) (Equal Treatment by Occupational Pension Schemes) Regulations 2023.—(Paul Maynard.)
Draft Aviation (Consumers) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Guy Opperman)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Aviation (Consumers) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. The regulations were laid before the House on 16 October. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne), who is responsible for aviation, sends his apologies. He is attending a sustainable aviation conference—please, no jokes about his taking flights. I hope to be an able stand-in.
The purpose of the instrument is to restate, under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, the key principles of retained EU case law relating to regulation No. 261/2004. It will help aviation consumers to receive the same protections and rights to compensation that they currently have when they experience flight disruption. Regulation No. 261/2004, which will become assimilated law at the end of the year, sets out the full rules on compensation and assistance for air passengers in the event of their being denied boarding, flight cancellation or long delay. Without the draft regulations before the Committee today, important principles that protect consumers in the UK would clearly be lost.
The territorial application of the statutory instrument is England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, as civil aviation is a reserved matter. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has considered this instrument and did not report it to the House at its meeting on 25 October. Under article 438, paragraph 3, of the trade and co-operation agreement, the UK and the EU
“shall consult each other on any matter related to”—
aviation—
“consumer protection, including their planned measures”.
The Department for Transport consulted the EU on the provisions of the instrument, and I am pleased to say that the EU had no comments on it.
I hope the Committee understands the need for and the importance of this instrument, and I commend—
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
The regulations and the explanatory memorandum refer to the tariff payable in compensation. Is that automatically uplifted with inflation, or will further recourse have to be made to Parliament to secure any inflationary increase?
Guy Opperman
That is an outstandingly good question, in reply to which I am delighted to say that I propose to get the aviation Minister to write to my right hon. Friend in quite a lot of detail on that point. If he bears with me, however, I might be able to respond to his question in my closing comments.
I commend the instrument to the Committee.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
We may be footballing rivals at the weekend, Mr Twigg, supporting Liverpool and Manchester City—I feel my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby breathing down my neck as well—but it is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
I welcome the Minister to his place and to the active travel brief. I had the great pleasure of cycling the sea-to-sea coastal route from Carlisle to Newcastle, through his beautiful constituency, just recently. I saw the sycamore tree in the gap literally days before it was felled, so I get to have it recorded in Hansard how sad I was about that. I know the tree is not technically in the Minister’s constituency.
I welcome the fact that aviation is back on the Green Benches and no longer on the Red Benches. We have a world-class aviation sector, and it is important that it is represented in the Commons. Unfortunately the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire—my sixth opposite number in government—is not here today, but as Woody Allen said, 80% of success is turning up, so I am glad the hon. Member for Hexham is here to represent the other 20% today.
The draft regulations aim to establish commonality and clear rules on compensation and assistance for passengers in the event of denied boarding, cancellation or long delay of flights. These have often been legally challenged, so clarification is necessary for that reason alone. A cancellation is defined as a flight being axed within 72 hours of its scheduled departure time. According to a recent report I read, in the first six months of this year, a staggering 6,665 UK flights were cancelled within that timescale. It is vital that we beef up protections for passengers who in good faith book tickets for business, for leisure and holidays, or to be reunited with family, only to find that they are not able to travel. The statutory instrument is designed to maintain the status quo and clarify the safeguards on consumer rights in the UK aviation industry.
The financial cost is often incidental to travel. What is important is the time taken in wasted annual leave, the dashed expectation and the disruption to life of many thousands of travellers when flights are cancelled. We have yet to develop a means to compensate them for the time and emotions expended in missed weddings, business meetings and family reunions. It is right that we ensure that the financial recompense is, at the very least, sufficient, clear and easily accessed by consumers.
When flights are cancelled or there are lengthy delays, airlines are required to assist passengers by providing information on their rights, and providing care and assistance during the disruption. The assistance includes, but is not limited to, providing meals during the delay, allowing passengers to communicate messages, and providing hotel accommodation. Airlines must also provide transfers to and from hotels for overnight delays, and passengers must be offered the choice of a refund, rerouting on alternative flights as soon as possible. It is important that airlines assist passengers by clearly setting out the options available to them.
It is also open to airlines to offer incentives to passengers to encourage them to fly at a later date—for example, by providing vouchers of a higher value. Last year, however, certain airlines sat on hundreds of millions of pounds of consumers’ money, having issued vouchers which in many cases were time limited. A report in the consumer press last year reported that some vouchers had just six months left on them. That “use it or lose it” element is bizarre and cannot be fair. Consumers should not be left having to fight for refunds, or go through an alternative dispute resolution process to find out how they can get their money back.
Furthermore, if passengers are given a credit note, the vouchers are not protected by the air travel organisers’ licence, so if the airline goes bust, their money is lost. With the lack of support given to the aviation sector by the Government over the past few years, during the pandemic, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that airlines will go to the wall, leaving consumers out of pocket again.
EU regulation No. 261/2004 provided for fixed sum compensation in some circumstances, but that does not apply to cancellations more than two weeks in advance, or where a cancellation or long delay is due to “extraordinary circumstances”. The draft SI restates the key principle and provides clarity on the rights of the passenger, but the industry has been clear that airlines are not responsible for delays and cancellations caused by circumstances outside their control, particularly when they have taken reasonable steps to avoid the delay or cancellation. The industry has also called for a clearer definition of extraordinary circumstances, and I agree. What is an extraordinary circumstance?
On 28 August this year, a technical issue caused many hundreds of flights to be delayed or cancelled. I know a UK Civil Aviation Authority investigation is under way and do not want to pre-empt its findings, but I am concerned that, at the time this happened, the Government stated that it was a one in 15 million chance and would not happen again. It struck me that, to arrive at that figure, someone had looked at the total number of flightpaths handled within the automated system—about 15 million—and decided that, because it happened only once, that made the occurrence a one in 15 million chance. Is that an extraordinary circumstance?
I know the independent review panel is considering, among other things, the immediate causes of the incident and how to prevent a repeat occurrence from happening in the future. It is also looking into airlines’ and airports’ costs of providing care, assistance and rerouting to customers. It is clear that, for some time, there has been a significant gap in the guidance. I hope the draft instrument will clear up the confusion and avert further legal challenge.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
I am very much enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s speech. Has he looked at the United States Federal Aviation Administration and the protections it offers, and considered how they compare with those of the EU/UK legislation?
Mike Kane
The hon. Gentleman has a beautiful constituency and a beautiful cathedral, and I got to see the Staffordshire hoard when I stayed overnight there. I shall escape from this Committee room and run to the House of Commons Library, where I promise to look up the federal regulation—
Mike Kane
Sorry, but I have to be on the other side of a general election before that would be worthwhile. We will see though; that is not hubris.
Returning to the definition of extraordinary circumstances, is an outbreak of sickness among the crew extraordinary? Bird strike? I do not know the answer, and I wonder whether we all need clearer guidance on what constitutes an extraordinary circumstance. As I said, the industry feels strongly that airlines should not be held responsible for delays and cancellations caused by circumstances outside their control and where they have taken reasonable steps to avoid the disruption. They argue strongly that changes to compensation should not remove the current approach, but should keep the status quo. The industry also called for clarification of the definition of extraordinary circumstances.
Regarding the consultation on the instrument, I note that there was no external consultation. The explanatory memorandum states that
“Department for Transport Ministers and officials have regular engagement with the aviation industry. The Department also works closely with the CAA”
and the EU. I understand very well why there was no external consultation on the instrument, as it merely replicates and clarifies existing legislation, but I have questions about the responses on consumer rights and how to ensure that in future consultations are more widely promoted.
The Government consultation last year on consumer reform garnered only 65 responses, with only 29% of them coming from individuals. I find it very hard to believe that fewer than 19 people in total have an opinion on such matters. It may be because I have an airport in my constituency, or because of my shadow ministerial role, but I receive more casework than that every year. How was the consultation promoted? Which advocacy and support groups were informed of the consultation? How many of the respondents were elderly people or people with disabilities? The Opposition will not oppose the statutory instrument today, but we ask for wider consultation on such measures.
Guy Opperman
I shall attempt to answer the hon. Gentlemen’s questions, but I will start with the fact that Hadrian’s Wall and the sea-to-sea route are in part in my constituency, as is “Sycamore gap”—or it was, until someone who we sincerely hope will be caught and sent to prison decided to use a chainsaw to cut it down.
The hon. Gentleman said there was a lack of support for airports during covid. With great respect, I have to push back on that. I have the privilege, with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), to represent Newcastle Airport. I know, because we meet regularly, that the airport was given huge amounts of taxpayer support during covid. It would have genuinely struggled without that support from the Treasury, as would many other businesses.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the NATS failure on 28 August. Clearly, that is a matter for an independent investigation, and like him, I await the results.
As for consultation, the consumer policy was consulted on in January 2022 and responded to in June 2023. Industry and consumer groups were engaged with in an ongoing series of workshops. I think a large number of consumer groups were involved, but I will get the aviation Minister to write to the hon. Gentleman giving chapter and verse on that—when one is not the Minister, one is always keen for others to write.
I shall endeavour to answer the question posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire. The rates are not uprated with inflation or downrated with deflation; however, the ongoing consultation on regulation No. 261/2004 might consider that matter, and I will ensure that the details are sent to my hon. Friend the aviation Minister.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero (Graham Stuart)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2023.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary, and to be with colleagues from across the House on this clearly brilliantly whipped Committee.
The UK emissions trading scheme—the UK ETS— was established under the Climate Change Act 2008 by the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Order 2020 as a UK-wide greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme to encourage cost-effective emissions reductions, contributing to the UK’s emissions reduction targets and net zero goal. The scheme is run by the UK ETS Authority, a joint body comprising the UK Government and the devolved Governments—we are all in this together. Our aim is to be predictable and responsible guardians of the scheme and its markets. In so doing, we will ensure that the scheme remains a cornerstone of our ambitious climate policy.
Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
My right hon. Friend mentions that the UK Government are working with the devolved assemblies. Given that the Northern Ireland Assembly is not working at the moment—or not sitting, anyway—are there other mechanisms in place to ensure that the civil servants in Northern Ireland are dealing with this matter and co-operating so that we can move forward as four nations?
Graham Stuart
My right hon. Friend, with his customary acuity, will have noticed that the draft order does not apply to Northern Ireland. As it happens, there are not counterparties in Northern Ireland to which these particular provisions apply, but energy in general is devolved to Northern Ireland, and it is up to Northern Ireland to take care of it.
The statutory instrument will implement a number of necessary changes and improvements to the UK ETS. The changes relating to aviation free allocation rules and to the treatment of electricity generators follow the announcements made by the UK ETS Authority in July, in our response to last year’s consultation on developing the UK ETS. The final change remedies an inconsistency with free allocation and carbon capture at UK ETS installations.
On aviation, the SI will cap the total amount of aviation free allocation that operators are eligible to receive at 100% of their verified emissions.
The SI makes technical changes to free allocation rules regarding the electricity generator classification for industrial installations—a minority sport, if ever there were one. It will amend the electricity generator classification to consider only electricity exports in the baseline period, instead of all electricity exports since 2005, allowing operators to change their installation’s electricity generator classification if they have put a stop to the export of electricity. Electricity exports representing no more than 5% of the total produced will also be excluded from consideration in this classification.
The SI will amend the electricity generator definition to exclude installations that have produced electricity for sale if that electricity was produced by means of a high-quality combined heat and power plant operating as part of an operator’s industrial activity. That will limit reductions in free allocation entitlements and provide further encouragement for industrial operators to achieve improved efficiency for their combined heat and power plants.
The SI makes an operational amendment to the electricity generator classification to allow electricity generators to be eligible for free allowances after the application date if they can demonstrate that they produced measurable heat by means of high-efficiency co-generation during the allocation period.
The SI remedies an inconsistency in legislation to make it clear that carbon capture and other types of regulated activity may be carried out on the site of the same installation. It will allow provision of free allowances to industrial installations at the same site as a carbon capture plant.
As the Northern Ireland Assembly is not sitting and cannot consider affirmative legislation, the SI covers only Great Britain. Officials in Northern Ireland have agreed that none of the provisions currently affects operators in Northern Ireland.
These changes will deliver on commitments made by the UK ETS Authority and improve the operation of the scheme. For aviation, the SI will ensure that free allocation is distributed appropriately until full auctioning for the aviation sector begins in 2026. That follows the decision announced in July that aviation free allocation will be phased out by 2026.
On free allocation technical changes, the SI will ensure that installations classed as electricity generators, whose eligibility for free allocation is limited, are able to change their classification if they are no longer exporting electricity. The SI will also ensure that industrial installations with high-quality combined heat and power plants that export excess electricity to the grid are not classified as electricity generators, in order not to limit their eligibility for free allowances.
On the electricity generator operational amendment, the SI will ensure that electricity generators can become eligible for free allowances during an allocation period if they meet the eligibility criteria.
On free allocation rules for carbon capture, the SI will prevent industrial installations from being disqualified from receiving free allowances because they are on the same site as a carbon capture plant—a situation that would pose a risk of disincentivising the uptake of crucial carbon capture technology.
These changes either follow appropriate and comprehensive consultation with stakeholders or did not require consultation. In the “Developing the UK ETS” consultation in 2022, the UK ETS Authority considered what technical improvements could be made to the current aviation free allocation methodology until aviation free allocation is phased out. The responses to the consultation called for an end to over-allocation. The policy intent of aviation free allocation is to mitigate the risk of carbon leakage, and the policy did not intend for aircraft operators to receive more allowances than their verified emissions. To that end, in July the UK ETS Authority announced the decision to cap aviation free allocation at 100% of verified emissions.
In the “Developing the UK ETS” consultation, we considered technical changes to free allocation rules regarding the electricity generator classification. The majority of respondents agreed with our suggested amendments, and the UK ETS Authority announced that it would proceed with changes to the electricity generator classification.
A consultation was not carried out for the CCS free allocation amendment as that is a clarification of existing policy intention and not a change to the policy.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
Would the Minister, either now or in summing up the debate, explain a bit about the phrase “free allocation”? On the face of it, if free allocation is to be set at 100% of the sector’s verified emissions, it does not sound like there is a lot of free space. He mentioned that free allocation was originally set at 127% because of concerns about carbon leakage. What has changed so that the Government are now satisfied that cutting it to 100% will not result in carbon leakage?
Graham Stuart
Fundamentally, due to the way the scheme was brought in, the airlines have had more free allocations than their actual emissions. The scheme was designed to cover their emissions until we phased out those allocations, as we are now doing, but they were being over-compensated, based on historical figures that no longer apply. These provisions will ensure that the airlines are not being given free allocations with a commercial value on the market over and above that which they need in order to operate. I hope that answers my hon. Friend’s question.
These alterations to the UK emissions trading scheme will support its role as a key pillar of the UK’s climate policy. They show that we will take action to improve the scheme where necessary, and they continue our record of delivering on our commitments. I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. Like the Minister, I commend the Committee for the huge turnout this afternoon to consider the SI. I am sure that is because everyone wants to hear at some length the Minister’s comments and, indeed, some of mine, but in case anyone is here because they think there might be a Division, I can assure them—I hope they do not leave now—that there will be no Division. Broadly speaking, we very much agree with these changes to the operation of the ETS. However, I have a number of questions about the detail of those changes, and I would like to put the SI in a bit of context. I am disappointed that that context is not better represented in the SI.
The context is not just that the UK ETS is up and running and requires minor amendments, but that it is rapidly diverging from the EU ETS. The divergence is such that, in October prices, the permit cost per tonne is £87 in the EU ETS, but £40 in the UK ETS. The EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement, which the UK freely signed, states:
“The Parties shall cooperate on carbon pricing. They shall give serious consideration to linking their respective carbon pricing systems in a way that preserves the integrity of these systems and provides for the possibility to increase their effectiveness.”
No action has been taken so far—[Interruption.]
Graham Stuart
Bringing uniquely to a conclusion the hon. Gentleman’s words.
Dr Whitehead
I am afraid not. I distinctly detect that that was part of an overture, not a final movement.
As I said, the agreement states that
“the Parties shall cooperate on carbon pricing”,
but there is no evidence of such co-operation. Not only that, but the two systems are diverging significantly. Hon. Members may ask whether that matters. It matters a lot in view of what is happening in the EU on the development of carbon border adjustment mechanisms.
The Chair
Order. Minister, sedentary interventions are never helpful. May I just ensure that we are talking about the order that the Committee is considering and not the issue generally?
Dr Whitehead
The carbon border adjustment mechanism, which is in its first month of operation in the EU, is in danger of pricing our materials—iron, steel, aluminium, fertiliser, electricity, hydrogen and so on—as if they were outside it and should therefore be penalised, unless there is some convergence between the EU ETS and the UK ETS in future. That is a real issue. What plans has the Minister to seek greater convergence between the UK and EU schemes? That is important in the context of the SI.
Dr Whitehead
I am making the point that there should be some mention of those particular circumstances in the order. For example, the substantial divergence between UK prices and EU prices will potentially have a real effect over time on aviation in Europe and the UK. The order ought therefore to be looked at in that light.
As the Minister has said and paragraph 7.4 of the explanatory memorandum explains, at 2021 prices, the free allowances set out for aviation represented 127% of the allowances that ought to have been made. In those circumstances, aviation has had something of a windfall. It has been able to take those free allowances, sell off the difference between 100% and 127% and make the actors in the industry between £50 million and £100 million. I welcome the fact that the allowances are to be capped at 100%, but I worry a little about whether the divergence between UK and EU ETS prices might lead the aviation industry to come back to us in the not too distant future and ask for some of those over-allowances back. We have to work together on the arrangements between boundaries for the UK ETS and EU ETS.
Was the over-allocation by accident or design? If it was by accident, are there any measures under way to try to restore some of the profits that have been made by aviation as it has put those substantial over-allowances into its pockets through trading, or is the Minister content to say that because it is now 100%, it is okay for the future and we will write off the past?
There is a similar issue of potential misallocation in the reclassification of companies that have not exported electricity for quite a while. As the Minister said, they continue to be classified as exporters even if they might not have exported electricity for quite a long time. Clearly, some long-term issues related to that misallocation will effectively be brushed over by the order, but I would like to know whether that has also resulted in free allocations being misapplied to the industry and whether the companies that have halted electricity exports but have been classified as exporters for quite a long time have benefited in an inappropriate way from that misclassification. If so, to what degree?
Although Labour supports getting the classifications right in the order, questions remain about why and how the misclassifications occurred and what action, retrospective or otherwise, the Government will take to ensure that the harm or benefit of them is as small as possible.
Having posed those three questions for the Minister, I confirm that we will not oppose the SI. Indeed, we welcome its clarification of how the UK ETS will move forward.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I rise only to ask a few questions, simply because the Minister was so sterling in directing what he was running through that he did not allow me to catch his eye to intervene at the point that his colleagues did. I am sure that was an oversight on my part and that I did not signal strongly enough.
Emissions do not stop at borders, so it is of concern to many of us that the Minister has set out what the SI might do but not clarified how it might interact with other emissions trading schemes, and in particular what the European Union is doing. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test, was much more eloquent and patient than I will be about the fact that the EU has its own system of trading and that, clearly, whatever we do will interact with that. Could the Minister set out how those two systems, in particular, will interact? What progress has been made on the commitment in the 2019 TCA that “serious consideration” would be given to linking them? Has he been serious? Has he considered it? The SI does not suggest that, but that does not mean he is not having conversations. Surely he could set that out.
More fundamentally, I wish to speak up for British steel, which will be directly impacted by this legislation; indeed, it has called for the Government to answer questions arising from the SI. I hope that I speak for all of us in the room in saying that we recognise the value to our national security and our climate change objectives of having a national steel industry. I understand the industry’s concerns about this legislation and the fact that, without support, the free allowances will not lead to the sustainability of the British steel industry. I hoped that we might hear some answers today, but the Minister did not mention the word “steel”. I am sure he will wish to correct that in responding to the debate. The industry thinks it will take nine years to decarbonise British steel at this rate; without support, the 2026 deadline could lead to the end of British steel and all the concerns that might arise from that.
In particular, the industry perceives a lack of leadership on the European carbon border adjustment mechanism and how it interacts with the ETS. The Minister did not mention Europe at all. I am sure that was an oversight rather than a deliberate omission. As I said, he did not mention steel either. Again, I am sure that was an oversight rather than a deliberate omission. Will he address both those issues and reassure us that he stands proudly with British steel, just as he recognises that emissions do not stop at borders?
Graham Stuart
I thank hon. Members for their contributions to this debate on pretty technical adjustments to the ETS.
By capping aviation free allocation, we are ensuring that it is distributed appropriately until full auctioning in 2026. The current situation is not deliberate; the policy did not intend for aircraft operators to receive more allowances than their verified emissions. It is noteworthy, though, that those allowances meant that operators were doubly encouraged to invest in cleaner operations, since they were incentivised not only by any savings from investment in more fuel-efficient aircraft, for instance, but by the credits that they received within the ETS. The Government have no plans to claw any of that back.
On the overall position of the UK carbon market, the UK ETS is of course a market mechanism. The price of carbon allowances in the UK ETS is set by the market. In line with the net zero cap we announced in July, the supply of emissions allowances entering the market will fall significantly every year from 2024. We are committed to continuing to deliver on these changes, as we have shown, by legislating to amend the supply of allowances over the coming years and publishing an auction calendar.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow mentioned the CBAM. We are closely following developments on the EU CBAM and engaging with the Commission on technical considerations that are relevant to UK manufacturers. As the hon. Lady will know, EU CBAM charging does not start until 2026.
I am nervous of opening up wider matters, although you have been generous, Sir Gary, in allowing discussion of issues that are broader than the technical amendments that the SI makes. If Members want a broad debate on the ETS and its interaction with Europe, there are many opportunities in the parliamentary calendar to do exactly that.
Dr Whitehead
Given that the Minister has mentioned the CBAM in response to the inquiry of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, I want briefly to record that iron and steel are in the first phase of the EU CBAM, and that that may affect UK iron and steel negatively. They could be treated as if they were imports to the EU, similar to iron and steel from India or other parts of the world. That should give substantial pause for thought about how we proceed with the UK ETS.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman is right about that being a substantial prompt for thought, but not on the particular order that the Committee is considering. As hon. Members will know, we ran a consultation earlier this year on domestic measures to mitigate carbon leakage, including consulting on a potential UK CBAM and mandatory product standards.
In answer to the point that the hon. Member for Walthamstow made, our commitment to the UK steel sector is clear. We continue to work closely with industry, including British Steel, to secure a sustainable and competitive future for the sector and its workers. We will continue to fulfil that commitment.
As I said, the UK ETS is a market mechanism, and the price of carbon allowances is set by the market. That continues to be our position.
The UK ETS is a cornerstone of UK climate policy. It is worth noting, to look momentarily at the bigger picture, that since 1990, the UK has cut its emissions by more than any other major economy on the planet. The Government put net zero into law for the first time, and the former Conservative leader, now the Foreign Secretary, was the first leader of a major party to call for a climate Act, which was introduced in 2008. I was proud to serve on the Joint Committee on the Draft Climate Change Bill under the excellent chairmanship of Lord Puttnam.
Graham Stuart
Yes. The SI sets a cap on emissions in the sectors covered—currently a quarter of the UK’s emissions. In doing that, it guarantees that those sectors will reduce their emissions in line with our world-leading net zero target,
Only yesterday, I was in The Hague, not, as some members of the Committee might have thought or hoped, answering for my crimes, but meeting Energy Ministers from the North Seas Energy Cooperation and Kadri Simson, the European Commissioner for Energy. I called for the full implementation of the energy chapter of the TCA and urged the EU to put the same energy into it as we are determined to show. We want the chapter to be fully implemented because, as the hon. Member for Southampton, Test said, we signed up to it in all solemnity.
In July, the UK Government and the devolved Governments, as the joint UK ETS Authority, set out a comprehensive package of reforms to the scheme. It increased the ambition of the UK ETS and set it on a path to net zero. As that package set out, a wide range of changes is required to ensure that the UK ETS remains a key part of the UK’s approach to achieving net zero.
We can be proud of our record to date: cutting more emissions than any other major economy on Earth and having the most ambitious nationally determined contribution up to 2030—a 68% reduction on 1990 levels —of any major economy on the planet, far ahead of the EU at 55%, as you will have noted, Sir Gary.
With that, I have probably said enough. I commend the order to the Committee.
The Chair
I can confirm that you have said enough.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2023.
Ministerial Corrections
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Education
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gillian Keegan
Earlier this year, we announced the largest ever investment in childcare in England’s history. Very soon, we will be spending £8 billion a year. That investment will ensure that every child gets the best start in life. It means that working parents will be entitled to 30 hours of free childcare from the end of parental leave until their child starts school. To give parents the flexibility they need, we are rolling out universal wraparound childcare for primary school children from 8 am to 6 pm. These Conservative policies will end the choice that some working mums and dads feel they need to make between having a family and having a career, and it will save parents up to £6,500 a year.
[Official Report, 8 November 2023, Vol. 740, c. 170.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan):
An error has been identified in my speech.
The correct information should have been:
Gillian Keegan
To give parents the flexibility they need, we are rolling out wraparound childcare for parents of primary school children from 8 am to 6 pm.
Gillian Keegan
I notice that the Labour party had a lot to say about attendance this morning, but the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) may have missed the 380,000 fewer children persistently absent in the past year. Yet again, Labour offers little more than empty words, with a touch of student politics. In Labour-run Wales, attendance rates are still far behind those in England. Last year’s attendance data showed that Wales only managed an attendance rate of 85.5%, compared with England’s 92.5%.
[Official Report, 8 November 2023, Vol. 740, c. 171.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan):
An error has been identified in my speech.
The correct response should have been:
Gillian Keegan
In Labour-run Wales, attendance rates are still far behind those in England. Last year’s attendance data showed that Wales only managed an attendance rate of 88.5%, compared with England’s 92.5%.
Renters (Reform) Bill (Fifth sitting)
Tuesday 21st November 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Renters (Reform) Bill 2022-23 View all Renters (Reform) Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 November 2023 - (21 Nov 2023)
The Chair
I welcome the Committee to its consideration of the Renters (Reform) Bill. It might be helpful if I lay out a few thoughts before we start line-by-line consideration. Most of you will be old hands, so forgive me if I am teaching grannies to suck eggs, but I might as well try for clarity.
First, will you make sure that you let any speaking notes you have go to Hansard, which makes it easier for the Hansard reporter accurately to report what you have said? Secondly, all the rules and conventions that apply in the Chamber apply here, in particular with regard to drinking coffee, leaving your coats lying around and things like that, on which I am rather old-fashioned. Forgive me if you do not agree, but the rules and conventions that we use in the Chamber, including on speaking, will be used here in Committee.
The purpose of the Committee you all know well. The Government have laid down the outline of the Bill as it was debated on Second Reading—it was read a Second time without Division—and the duty of the Committee is now to examine the words of the Bill to ensure that the resulting law is as good as it possibly can be, leaving aside the principle that may lie behind it. Any member of the Committee, including members on the Government side and in particular those in His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, may table as many amendments as they like on as many clauses as they like, bearing in mind that amendments for consideration on a Thursday must be tabled by the Tuesday and that amendments for consideration on a Tuesday must be tabled by the rise of the House on the previous Thursday. If they are tabled later, they will not normally be considered unless there is a particular reason why they should be.
The end result is the amendment paper that you have before you. You will also see the selection list with the grouping of amendments; it is in my name, but is actually done by my learned friend the Clerk. It groups together topics of similar interest, right through the Bill: we might find that an amendment to clause 1 is grouped with an amendment to schedule 23, say, because that makes it easier to debate. We debate the principle behind the changes; the changes are then voted on when we get to that point in the Bill, rather than at the time we debate them. People often find that confusing, but it works more easily that way.
Unless there are any questions on that little “Boy’s Own” introduction, we now come to line-by-line consideration of the Bill.
Clause 1
Assured tenancies to be periodic with rent period not exceeding a month
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 2—Repayment of rent paid in advance.
Government new clause 6—Liability of tenants under assured tenancies for council tax.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Jacob Young)
May I join you, Mr Gray, in thanking members of the Committee for their engagement with the Bill so far?
My view is that the Bill delivers a better deal for renters and for landlords. As hon. Members are aware, however, we must tread lightly. This is a fine balancing act. Go too far one way, and good landlords will find it harder to operate and exit the market; go too far the other way, and the Bill will not give renters the protections we all seek against bad actors in the private rented sector. As we delve into the Bill, I ask all hon. Members to consider the impact of proposed amendments on that delicate balance.
Everyone has the right to a secure and decent home, whether they own it or are among the 11 million people living in the private rented sector; that is the guiding principle of the entire Bill. Clause 1 will remove fixed terms. It provides that tenancies will be periodic in future: under the clause, the tenancy will roll from period to period. Any term in a contract that includes a fixed term will not be enforceable.
The clause also has limits on how long a rental period can be. That is to prevent unscrupulous landlords from emulating fixed terms by introducing longer periods to contracts. Fixed terms lock tenants into contracts, meaning that they may not be able to end their tenancy before the end of the term and move to another property when they need to, for example to take a new job or when a landlord fails to maintain basic standards or repair a property. The changes will also give landlords more flexibility: they may end the tenancy when they need to, under specified grounds that are covered in later clauses, rather than waiting for the end of the fixed term.
Government new clause 2 will require landlords to refund rent in advance where the tenancy has ended earlier than the duration already paid for. That applies regardless of how the tenancy came to an end. It will ensure that rogue landlords do not try to lock tenants in with large up-front payments.
Government new clause 6 will deliver a technical change to council tax rules in the light of the abolition of fixed-term assured tenancies. It will ensure that tenants who hold assured tenancies are liable for council tax until the end of their tenancy agreement. In particular, tenants will remain liable for council tax when they have served notice to end their tenancy but leave the property before the notice period has ended. That will ensure that liability for council tax does not pass back to the landlord until the tenancy has formally ended. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to begin our line-by-line consideration with you in the Chair, Mr Gray. It is a genuine privilege to serve on a Committee with such evident expertise in the subject matter. It is my sincere hope that we can draw constructively on it all in the days ahead to improve this long-overdue but welcome piece of legislation.
As the Opposition argued on Second Reading, the case for fundamentally reforming the private rented sector—including by making all assured tenancies periodic in future, as clause 1 seeks to do—is watertight. As the Minister implied, regardless of whether someone is a homeowner, a leaseholder or a tenant, everyone has a basic right to a decent, safe, secure and affordable home. However, millions of people presently renting privately live day in, day out with the knowledge that they could be uprooted with little notice and minimal justification, if any. The lack of certainty and security inherent in renting privately today results not only in an ever-present anxiety about the prospect of losing one’s home and often one’s community, but—for those at the lower end of the private rented market, who have little or no purchasing power and who all the evidence suggests are increasingly concentrated geographically—in a willingness to put up with often appalling conditions for fear that a complaint will lead to an instant retaliatory eviction.
This House last legislated to fundamentally alter the relationship between landlords and tenants in 1988, when I was just six years old. The Minister may have been even younger.
Matthew Pennycook
Well, that just makes my point that the sector should have been overhauled a long time ago. The fact that it has changed beyond recognition over recent decades and now houses not just the young and the mobile, but many older people and families with children, for whom having greater security and certainty is essential to a flourishing life, renders urgent the need to transform how it is regulated and to level decisively the playing field between landlords and tenants.
This Bill is a good starting point to that end. We are glad that after a very long wait, it is finally progressing. However, we are determined to see it strengthened in a number of areas so that it truly delivers for tenants. In this Committee and the remaining stages, we will seek to work constructively with the Government to see this legislation enacted, but we also expect Ministers to give serious and thoughtful consideration to the arguments we intend to make about how its defects and deficiencies might be addressed.
Part 1 of the Bill seeks to amend the assured tenancy regime introduced by the Housing Act 1988. In the nearly 35 years since that Act came into force in January 1989, with some limited exceptions, all new private sector tenancies in England and Wales have been either assured or assured shorthold tenancies, with the latter becoming the default PRS tenancy following the implementation of the Housing Act 1996. As the Committee will know, assured tenancies can be either periodic or fixed, but the vast majority of ASTs are fixed.
Clause 1 will insert a new section 4A before section 5 of the 1988 Act, thereby providing, as the Minister made clear, that all future assured tenancies will be periodic and open-ended, and that they can no longer have fixed terms. That change will empower tenants by giving them more flexibility to end tenancies where and when they want or need to, including when landlords are not meeting their responsibilities and obligations or in instances in which the property that they have moved into is not as advertised. We support it.
We take no issue with Government new clause 2. Although we are not convinced that it is strictly necessary, given how the Apportionment Act 1870 applies to rent paid in advance, we believe that it is a worthwhile amendment none the less, to the extent that it makes express provision for that.
We believe that Government new clause 6 is a necessary change to how council tax works, given that the Bill abolishes fixed-term tenancies. However, in the sense that its effect will be to render a tenancy that
“is or was previously an assured tenancy within the meaning of the Housing Act 1988”
a “material interest” for the purposes of this Bill, we would be grateful if the Minister provided some clarification. Could he tell us the effect of the proposed change in circumstances in which a tenant used to have an assured tenancy but, after this part of the Bill comes into force, now does not because of circumstances that are out of their control? Let us say, to take an extreme example, that a tenant died prior to the end of their assured tenancy, and the relevant provisions came into force. Would their estate be forced to pay the council tax liability as a consequence of the new clause?
We understand the Government’s intention with regard to the new clause, which is to manage the transition between the two tenancy regimes when it comes to council tax. However, we are a little concerned that, as drafted, the new clause may be unnecessarily broad and may create some problematic outcomes. The explanatory statement accompanying the new clause suggests that it may have another purpose altogether—namely, to make people liable if they leave a tenancy without giving notice—but that raises the obvious question of how the Valuation Office Agency and the relevant local authority are meant to know that, and how the local authority might ever hope to find the tenant who is liable. Could the Minister tell us whether the Government have discussed the matter at all with either the Valuation Office Agency or the Local Government Association?
Lastly in connection with this new clause, is there not a risk that unscrupulous landlords may game this provision by claiming that there is still a tenant in situ who should settle the council tax liability, rather than the landlord doing so? Our concern is that the provision could be abused along those lines and that local authority revenue would suffer as a result. I would appreciate some reassurance and clarification on those points in the Minister’s response.
With or without the incorporation of Government new clause 2 and new clause 6—after clause 6 and before clause 20 respectively—huge uncertainty now surrounds the implementation of clause 1, and the rest of chapter 1 of part 1, as a result of the Government’s recent decision to tie implementation of the new system directly to court improvements. Whatever the motivation behind that—renters will no doubt have reached their own conclusions—the decision has significant implications for when clause 1 and the other clauses in this chapter become operational. We need answers today, so that those whose lives stand to be affected are clear as to what they are.
Clause 67, “Commencement and application”, gives the Secretary of State the power by regulations to appoint a day when chapter 1 of part 1, including clause 1, comes into force. In other words, the Bill has always given Ministers discretion as to precisely when the new system becomes operational—a matter that we will debate more extensively in a future sitting when we come to clause 67 itself and our amendment 169 to it.
The Government were previously clear that there would be a two-stage transition to the new tenancy system, with precise starting dates for new and existing tenancies to be determined by the Secretary of State, and that a package of wide-ranging court reforms was to accompany the legislation, but at no point prior to the response issued on 20 October this year to the Select Committee on Levelling Up, Housing and Communities did the Government indicate that the new system’s implementation was directly dependent on such reforms. As things stand, because of the Government’s last-minute change of approach, not only do tenants have no idea when the new tenancy system will come into force, but they do not even know what constitutes the requisite progress in respect of court reform that Ministers now deem is necessary before it does.
There are three distinct questions to which the Government have so far failed to provide adequate answers. First, is the county court system for resolving most disputes between landlords and tenants performing so badly that reform is a necessary precondition of bringing this clause and others in this chapter into force?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
We heard from many representations on the county court part of the process that the county court system was performing adequately. Does that not make one suspicious that there are other motivations for kicking this into the long grass?
Matthew Pennycook
I will come on to our view of precisely how the county court system is operating, but I think it would be fair to say that we do not necessarily buy the Government’s argument that it is performing so badly that we need to tie implementation of this clause and others in this chapter to it. It could certainly do with improvement, but if it needs improvement, we need to know what that improvement is. That is an argument that I will come on to make in due course.
The second of my three questions to the Government relates to the point that my hon. Friend has just raised: if the court system requires improvement to ensure that landlords can quickly regain possession of their property if a tenant refuses to move out, what is the precise nature of the improvements that are required? Thirdly, how can we measure progress on delivering those improvements so that tenants have certainty about when the new system might come into force?
I will start with my first question. With apologies, Mr Gray, I intend to spend some considerable time on this point, because it is central to when the clause and the rest of the chapter come into force.
If one examines the evidence, it is clear that the possession claims system is one of the faster and better-administered parts of the civil justice system. As housing expert Giles Peaker put it when giving evidence to the Committee on Thursday, it is “well honed”. As Simon Mullings, co-chair of the Housing Law Practitioners Association, stated in the same session:
“What we have at the moment is an extremely good network of county courts, with a very evolved set of civil procedure rules that deal with possession claims very well.” ––[Official Report, Renters (Reform) Public Bill Committee, 16 November 2023; c. 111, Q141.]
The data seems to bear that out. It makes it clear that the various stages of possession and litigation are back to where they were pre-pandemic, and that non-accelerated possessions are not taking significantly longer than the relevant guidelines stipulate. As Giles Peaker argued,
“the current time from issue to a possession order under the accelerated possession proceedings—an ‘on the papers’ process, without a hearing—is roughly the same as under the section 8 process with an initial hearing. There is no great time lag for the section 8 process as opposed to accelerated possession proceedings.”––[Official Report, Renters (Reform) Public Bill Committee, 16 November 2023; c. 111, Q141.]
One of the more robust defences of the adequacies of the present system that I have heard came from the sixth of the seven housing and planning Ministers that I have shadowed in my two years in this role. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) argued:
“It is important to note at this point that the vast majority of possession claims do not end up in the courts—only something like 1% of claims go through the courts... The courts have already made huge improvements. It is worth saying that over 95% of hearings are listed within four to eight weeks of receipt, and of course the ombudsman will encourage the early dispute resolution process, taking a lot of claims out of the courts and freeing up court time for more complex processes.”—[Official Report, 23 October 2023; Vol. 738, c. 695.]
We also heard expert testimony last week that called into question the suggested impact of the Bill on the courts. For example, it was disputed whether the reforms in the Bill would increase the number of contested cases. Giles Peaker persuasively argued that there was likely to be an increase in the number of initial hearings, but that we are unlikely to see an increase in the number of contested hearings.
To the extent that concern was raised about capacity within the system, several witnesses argued that it still did not justify postponing the enactment of chapter 1 of part 1. Indeed, the head of justice at the Law Society, Richard Miller, argued in relation to plans for digitisation that it would be sensible to see the new tenancy system put in place first so that we can properly understand what a new digital system needs to achieve in respect of the Bill.
Every part of the civil justice system would benefit from improvement, but we would argue that, to date, the Government have failed to demonstrate that the county court system for resolving landlord and tenant disputes is failing to the degree that it is imperative to further delay the long-overdue reforms to tenancies in the Bill. I would be grateful if the Minister set out very clearly why the Government believe the possession of claims system is so woefully inadequate that the enactment of clause 1 and the other clauses in chapter 1 must be postponed.
I turn to the second of my questions. If we accept that the county court system as it relates to housing cases could be improved—probably no one here would dispute that, even if we might debate the extent of the improvement required—how are the Government defining improvement? To put it another way, what is the precise nature of the improvements that Ministers believe are required before we finally abolish section 21 of the 1988 Act and reform the tenancy system, as clause 1 and other clauses in chapter 1 will do?
Let us examine and interrogate what the Government have said about this. Their 20 October response to the Select Committee stated:
“We will align the abolition of section 21 and new possession grounds with court improvements, including end-to-end digitisation of the process.”
Will the Minister tell us precisely what is meant by end-to-end digitisation of the process? Precisely what process did that statement refer to? Was it a reference to just the court possession action process, or to civil and family court and tribunal processes more generally? Further detail was seemingly provided in the briefing notes that accompanied the King’s Speech on 7 November:
“We will align the abolition of section 21 with reform of the courts. We are starting work on this now, with an initial commitment of £1.2 million to begin designing a new digital system for possessions. As work progresses, we will engage landlords and tenants to ensure the new system supports an efficient and straightforward possession system for all parties.”
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Did we not hear in evidence that the key for this to work was the property portal? Delaying the implementation of these measures until after court reform would therefore seem to be the wrong way around. Surely the property portal and ombudsman need to be up and running, and then we can see what pressure is on the courts, and we can also integrate the property portal into the digitalisation of the process.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is a point well made, and I think the same point was made by Richard Miller of the Law Society. If this Bill works as intended, there are a number of provisions in it that should relieve the burden on the courts. We all want to see that happen. However, to the extent that the courts do need to act in possession cases, we need to know precisely what the Government mean by the “improvements” that they have been referring to over recent months.
That King’s Speech briefing note would suggest that the required improvements relate only to the court possession action process. However, it is not clear whether the proposed new digital system for possessions is the only improvement that Ministers believe needs to be delivered before the new tenancy system can be introduced, and if so—this is crucial—by what date that new system will be operational.
Can the Minister tell us more about the new digital system for possessions that the King’s Speech briefing note referred to? Specifically, can he tell us whether its introduction is the sole determinant of when the new tenancy system can come into force? Can he also outline when the Government expect work on that new digital system to be completed by the Government and rolled out for use by landlords, given that it appears—on the basis of the King’s Speech briefing note—to have only just commenced?
The White Paper “A fairer private rented sector”, which the Government published in June 2022, set out the Government’s intention, working in partnership with the Ministry of Justice and HM Courts and Tribunals Service, to
“introduce a package of wide-ranging court reforms”.
Those went beyond purely the court possession action process that I have just been speaking to. It was suggested in the White Paper that the package would include steps to address county court bailiff capacity, a lack of adequate advice about court and tribunal processes, a lack of prioritisation of cases and the strengthening and embedding of mediation services for landlords and renters—issues that many of our witnesses in last week’s evidence sessions referred to.
Many of those issues were also identified in the Government’s response to the Select Committee as “target areas for improvement”. What is not clear is whether the implementation of the new tenancy system, and this clause, is dependent on Ministers judging that sufficient progress has been made in relation to each of those target areas for improvement, or whether it is dependent, as I have suggested, solely on improvements in the court possession process.
Can the Minister tell us clearly which one it is? Will the new tenancy system be introduced only when improvements have been made in all the target areas specified, or is the implementation date linked solely to improvements in the court possession process? If it is the former, what are the criteria by which the Government will determine when sufficient improvements have been made in each of the listed target areas for improvement? Those of us on the Opposition side of the Committee, and many of the millions of tenants following our proceedings, need answers to those questions. As we debate the Bill today, we do not know precisely what reform of the courts is required for the new tenancy system to be enacted.
I turn to my third question. Because we have no real sense of precisely what the Government mean by court improvements, and therefore no metrics by which they might be measured, we have no idea whether and when they might be achieved. The concern in that regard should be obvious. Having been assured repeatedly by Ministers that the passage of this Bill will see a new tenancy system introduced and the threat of section 21 evictions finally removed, tenants have no assurances, let alone a guarantee, that the Government have not, in effect, given themselves the means to defer—perhaps indefinitely—the implementation of these long-promised changes.
As I referenced in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown, we accept that the court system needs to be improved so that, when landlords or tenants escalate a dispute, they can have confidence that it will be determined in an efficient and timely manner. However, since they committed themselves to abolishing section 21 evictions, the Government have had more than four and a half years to make significant improvements to the system to support tenants and good-faith landlords, and they have not succeeded in doing so.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
On that four-and-a-half-years point, can my hon. Friend clarify how many people have been evicted through no-fault eviction since 2019, when abolition was originally promised?
Matthew Pennycook
That is a very good point. Every month that the Government delayed tabling the Bill, many thousands of tenants were put at risk of homelessness by a section 21 eviction. I cannot remember the precise figure, but I think the last Government data release showed that just under 80,000 tenants had been put at risk of homelessness as the result of a section 21 notice since the Government first committed to abolishing section 21. And we are talking not just about those 80,000, but about however many tens of thousands more will be put at risk of eviction while the Government delay the enactment of the provisions on the basis of court reforms.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that this issue is putting huge strains on local authorities, which are being forced to pick up so many homeless families at a time when social housing unit availability is at its lowest and it is difficult to find any form of temporary accommodation that is half-decent?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for that well-made point. A related and incredibly important issue is the supply of genuinely affordable housing, and the Government have failed woefully to build enough social rented homes in this country to meet housing need. She is absolutely right that local authorities are picking up the burden for this failure and the failure in the courts. My local authority—like hers, I am sure—is now sending people in need of temporary accommodation as far as Dartford or north Kent, and even further in some cases. Those people are struggling to retain a foothold in the community they live in and value, and in the schools that their children go to. Frankly, that is unacceptable. We need an end to section 21 as soon as possible.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
My hon. Friend talked about the insecurity for tenants if the measure is not implemented in time, but does he also think that if it is not clear when it will be implemented, there could be adverse effects on the wider rented sector market? We know that people game the system; if it is not clear when the measure will be implemented, the danger is that people can run rings around both tenants and the public sector.
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend is right: a protracted delay in implementing this clause and the others in chapter 1 could lead landlords to look at how they can best abuse the system before the new one is introduced. Equally importantly, it could provide a real problem for good-faith landlords who are trying to do the right thing. If a landlord who is affected by high interest rates and section 24 tax changes is wondering whether they can stay in the market and continue to provide private lets, how does it help to have hanging over their head an undetermined date, based on an unspecified set of metrics, for when a new system will come into force?
As I was saying, the Government have had more than four and a half years to improve the court system. They have not succeeded. If they had, then, as the former Housing Minister—the hon. Member for Redditch—claimed, they would have had no justification for delaying the enactment of this clause and the others on the grounds that the system is failing to such an extent that landlords have no confidence in it. The truth is that the Government’s record on court reforms is as woeful as their record on social rented housing. In a damning report published this summer, the Public Accounts Committee made it clear that, seven years into the courts and tribunals reform programme, HMCTS
“is once again behind on delivering critical reforms to its services. Overall, despite an increase in budget, the programme is set to deliver less than originally planned, at a time when the reforms are even more vital to help reduce extensive court backlogs.”
The Chair
Order. I indicated to the hon. Gentleman that I was content with a reasonably wide-ranging, Second Reading-type debate on clause 1 stand part, but we are now going well beyond the scope of the clause. Perhaps he might like to return to it.
Matthew Pennycook
I am bringing my remarks to a close. The degree of progress in improving the courts is pertinent to the debate, given that the Government have linked the implementation of the clause directly to it. When it comes to digitisation, which the Government have flagged as one of the target areas for improvement and on which the implementation of this clause relies, the Government have made agonisingly slow progress. As Mr Miller from the Law Society argued in his evidence to the Committee last week, the project to digitise private family law was announced in 2020 and was scheduled to be completed in December 2022. Yet the issue is ongoing and the roll-out has not yet been completed.
Given the Government’s record on court reform, how can tenants, looking for clause 1 and other clauses in chapter 1 to be enacted as soon as possible, have any confidence that sufficient progress will now be made in even the limited number of areas identified by the Government? As I have remarked, the inefficiency of the court system is a huge problem and action must be taken to address its lack of capacity so that possession claims can be expedited. The end of no-fault evictions cannot be made dependent on an unspecified degree of future progress subjectively determined by Ministers.
On Second Reading, we asked for clear commitments from the then Housing Minister on metrics and timescales that would give renters a degree of certainty about when the new tenancy system would be introduced. None was forthcoming. There is a huge amount of confusion, and genuine concern, about this issue. In the absence of any assurances to the contrary, the conclusion that has been reached by many tenants, and those who represent them and defend their interests, is that the Government have reached for a spurious excuse in order to delay the implementation of some of the most fundamental reforms in this legislation, under pressure from the landlord lobby and discontented Members on their own Back Benches.
I have spent some time on this clause stand part debate, but that is because of its importance to millions of tenants in England and Wales. We will return to this issue again when we debate clause 67, but given that the Government have made it operational on clause 1 and the rest of chapter 1 is dependent on those unspecified reports, we would appreciate it if the Minister took the opportunity in this debate to clarify precisely what the Government’s intentions are and set a clear timeline for when the new periodic tenancies provided for by this clause, as well as the rest of the new tenancy system, will come into force.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
In the interests of avoiding repetition, I will keep my remarks fairly brief. As I outlined on Second Reading, Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill. We welcome the objective of achieving a balance between landlords and tenants, increasing the supply in the private rented sector and enhancing the ability of tenants to enjoy a secure and safe home. To that end, we welcome the introduction of periodic tenancies.
I would like to touch on some of the evidence that we heard last week around the absence of any longer-term tenancy option. We heard from both tenant and landlord groups that in certain situations they would like a long-term tenancy option to be introduced. As things stand, periodic tenancies guarantee a tenant only six months’ security before a no-fault ground for eviction can be introduced. For a landlord, that period of certainty is effectively only two months, because of the notice period that the tenant has available to them. Some landlords might therefore feel that they are not secure in that market, given that they cannot guarantee their income. Equally, tenants might feel that they are unable to commit to a local school, for example, or a job, because they do not know whether they will be in that property for longer than six months.
I have not tabled an amendment, because clause 1 does away with fixed-term tenancies and is a fundamental part of the Bill, and also because we are not opposing the introduction of periodic tenancies, but will the Minister give some indication of whether a long-term alternative, where neither the landlord nor the tenant could break those terms, could be considered? That would mean that some people will have the security that they need.
I was particularly concerned about the evidence from Grainger plc that some financing is dependent on the availability of a longer-term period for the landlord. We would all hate to see withdrawal from the housing market because of a lack of financing for landlords, given that the issue of supply underpins this whole housing crisis—not just in the private rented sector, but in social housing, as the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden has already pointed out.
That is my key concern about clause 1. I do not want to repeat the concerns about the delays in implementing clause 1, except to echo them. Landlords are running a business and need certainty about when these reforms will take place, so that they can plan for them. Uncertainty is the worst thing for a business. Even if they do not particularly like the idea that is coming in, planning for it enables them to get over the hurdles, but if there is uncertainty, that is the worst thing for any business to plan for. The Minister needs to be clear about the timescale of reform, when exactly the clause will be implemented and what the finished reform will look like. I echo the concerns around that.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
I rise briefly to reinforce the key points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster and I share in our borough what I think is the largest private rental market in the country, so these issues are of particular concern to us. I am sure that she, like me, deals with consequences of section 21 evictions constantly.
We are all pleased to be here finally to recognise the principle that the section 21 evictions will end. However, I must also echo the concerns about the practice being dependent on a Government decision that in itself rests on agreement on court reform. That, as we heard in evidence last week, is unspecified and imprecise, which allows for the possibility that it will be some time before tenants see the benefits.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich was asked in an intervention how many households had lost their homes since the Government introduced the principle of the Bill. The answer to that is 23,000 households since the commitment to the principle in the Bill. Even more worryingly, if the provisions of the Bill do not come into effect until the end of 2024, we are likely to see an additional 35,000 households losing their homes.
The consequences of losing a home are catastrophic for families. Many of us rented when we were younger, when we were students or young professionals, and moving frequently is a hazard of young life, but the private rented sector has been transformed in recent decades; it is now a home to families with children in a way that it simply was not a couple of decades ago. Therefore, the consequences for those families are at a level of disruption that is quite different, in particular in the impact on young people’s education.
One of the aspects that I deal with a lot, and that causes me great concern, is the number of uprooted families who have education and care plans. Children might be in the middle of special needs education—in particular, vulnerable children with autism or various disabilities—but they are uprooted and moved to different boroughs. That is also at considerable public expense, let alone the damaging consequences for the children.
We also have a growing number of older renters. Again, that was very rare a few decades ago. Those people have put down roots over decades.
Siobhain McDonagh
Has my hon. Friend had the same experience that I have had? I see an ever-growing number of constituents over 60 who face section 21 eviction. In the 26 years that I have been the MP for Mitcham and Morden and in the previous 18 years that I was a councillor, or when I worked for Wandsworth local authority or the Battersea Churches Housing Trust, I have never seen that. It is a very new development.
Ms Buck
I very much agree. That is a new development, and it is extremely worrying and damaging to people’s quality of life.
The whole area of enforced mobility and frequent moves is an under-researched area of social policy, but it has massive implications. There is unfortunately far too little quality research, but from anecdotal evidence we know the negative impacts that frequent moves have on children’s education—I mentioned special needs, but there is an impact on children’s educational opportunities generally. I and, I am sure, other Members who represent areas with large renting populations have heard of children being uprooted in the weeks before they take public examinations, and being forced to commute to their schools, sometimes travelling an hour or more each way. We know that this is bad for educational prospects, we know it is bad for health, and we know that it correlates with low birth rates, infant mortality and serious mental health consequences.
Siobhain McDonagh
The guidance code on dealing with homeless families suggests that priority for local temporary accommodation should be given to children in their exam years. That is a great aspiration, but it is not being realised on the ground because local authorities cannot find accommodation, particularly for larger families.
The Chair
Order. Before the hon. Member for Westminster North replies, I must point out that although these are important matters, they are consequences of what we are discussing but not of the precise clause. We ought to return to the group of amendments before us.
Ms Buck
Thank you, Mr Gray. I was merely making the point that agreeing the principle in the Bill but not setting a date, or making the date consequential on an unmeasurable set of objectives, will have serious real-life consequences for individuals and public services.
Regarding court reform, the evidence we heard last week from the Law Society, the Housing Law Practitioners Association and other expert lawyers is that it is simply not a prerequisite for abolishing section 21. I hope the Minister will respond specifically to the evidence we heard that the median time between claim and possession has fallen back to pre-pandemic levels, meaning the courts are performing better than in recent years, so the assertion that they are incapable of dealing with the consequences of the abolition of section 21 is not a valid argument. As Shelter told us, the pressure is overstated, in part because most evictions are concluded with tenants vacating before court proceedings; demands on the courts are therefore not as presented. In addition, many possession cases under section 21 would not be legitimate claims under section 8.
We also heard evidence that court digitisation is, if anything, adding to the delays affecting the civil court system. The speed of transformation, the scale of change and the multiplicity of changes happening simultaneously may place an additional burden on the courts system, rather than facilitating speed over the next couple of years. The National Audit Office and PAC reports made much the same points. I argue that the Bill is being delayed because of a flawed and rushed digitisation processes, and unwillingness to recognise that the civil courts as they stand are perfectly capable of dealing with the consequences of the abolition of section 21.
I hope the Minister will respond specifically to those points. The Opposition are desperately anxious to get on with the abolition of section 21. We want families to have security and stability and the pressure on local authorities of homelessness to be reduced. We do not believe that the arguments advanced by the Government for failing to speed ahead with implementation are valid.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I rise to support clause 1, while raising concerns similar to those expressed by my good colleagues about the delay to its implementation. I will first explain why it is important that we abolish fixed-term tenancies and do not provide loopholes whereby such tenancies can be brought back in, despite the well-meaning efforts of colleagues on this Committee.
When the original Act that introduced assured tenancies and assured shorthold tenancies was being discussed, assured tenancies were initially expected to be the dominant form of tenancy. Members can see from the debate at the time that assured shorthold tenancies were meant to be there because some tenants might want the security of a specified period. What happened over the slightly less than 10 years until the 1996 Act was that they dominated and took over the market as the only recourse for people. The reality is that tenants do not have a choice: they must choose what is available—what the landlord offers. If there is an option for any form of fixed period, the landlord might well offer it for that property. That then limits the tenants who can apply for that property to people who are willing to have fixed-term periods only, and eventually those are the only tenancies offered in the market. Effectively, we get to the same situation that we have at the moment.
I applaud the Government for not relenting and giving into having fixed-term periods, even for longer periods. Although the argument might sound appealing, it is a slippery slope. It is also true that none of our future conditions can be predicted. I might sign a tenancy and the landlord’s situation or mine might change; the inability to get out of that situation, or the requirement to go to the courts to get out of it, would bung up the courts and slow the process down. It is, then, the right call to make.
I worry that the link relates to the courts. I heard that the problem was getting bailiffs in at the final stage of the final part for, let us be clear, a very small number. Most people leave when a section 21 notice is issued—in cases under the Bill, that will be when the new grounds are issued—and they leave quickly. They often leave before their time limit is up, because they have found a place, or when it is up. The very few who do not leave and are required to go to court will usually leave as soon as the court has given notice. There is of course a tiny minority who need to be dealt with efficiently—they need forceful eviction via bailiffs and are required to leave.
I think we all agree that reform of the bailiff system needs to happen. It needs to happen on many fronts to make sure that it is sensitive, targets the right people and is efficient for all sides. That does not seem the same as needing to wait for the advanced digitisation of the court system. We all agree that the court system needs digitisation, but they are two different things. The digitising of the bailiff system does not seem to be the problem we have heard about bailiffs: the problem we have heard about bailiffs is the supply chain. It is about the pay and conditions of bailiffs, the equipment they need and procuring the right number of bailiffs in certain areas, with London being particularly problematic. If the Minister is talking about bailiff reform in respect of the delay, it would be useful if he could be clear about what exactly the Government will do to increase the number of bailiffs in the sector. If this is not about bailiff reform, the Minister needs to give clear indicators of what the court reform he talks about actually is.
We heard in evidence that while we can always have improvements in the courts, we must not do it the wrong way around. We need a property portal through which eviction notices can be served to free up some of the court processes. We need an ombudsperson who can help to resolve disputes before they get to the courts, so that we can get to a situation in which things do not lead to eviction because the issue has already been resolved. We also need clearer competencies for councils to be able to fulfil their homelessness duty—there are amendments on that later in the Bill. That is what will free up the courts, so the full implementation of the Bill, not delays to sections of it, is needed to allow the courts to function more effectively.
The danger of delaying the implementation of clauses 1 and 3—on periodic tenancies and section 21—is that there will be a rush for evictions in that period or, as we have heard from Opposition Members, that landlords will be unsure about their situation, the market will slow down and people will withdraw to see what happens. I would like the private rented sector to be smaller overall in the long term, but I do not think anyone thinks that, before we get Britain building again, withdrawing or slowing down the letting market would do anyone any favours.
Helen Morgan
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent point about short fixed terms, and I absolutely agree with him. To be clear, my proposal was for a long fixed term of at least three years.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I totally take that point. I am talking specifically about the short-term problem.
On the all-party parliamentary group for renters and rental reform, we heard from Gemma Marshall, who every year has to look for a new house and has had to change her children’s school three times. She lives not in London, which is even worse, but in north Devon. This problem affects all parts of our country. We also heard from Amy Donovan, who does live in London, and equally has had to move numerous times, which has meant that she cannot commute to her job effectively and has had to move job.
This issue causes problems for the very foundations of society. On the Opposition Benches—and, I genuinely believe, on both sides of the House—we believe that strong societies are built with strong, stable families and communities from the ground up. To some extent, communities are built with bricks and mortar—with people being safe and secure where they are. That is why the clause is so important, but also why it is so important that it is implemented right now, because any delay will mean more mould on the walls for the Amys of the world and more new schools for the Gemmas and their children. Whether the wait is a year, two years or whenever the Minister has the whim to act—he has not laid out the conditions in which he will enact the clause—it is not acceptable for anyone.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
I do not intend to detain the Committee for long. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown on his powerful contribution to the debate, which has inspired me to make a contribution.
I want to pick up on a point that the hon. Member made about the aims of the clause and the flexibility for tenants to leave their tenancies when they need to. That is welcome, and I welcome the clause. I also welcome what my hon. Friend the Minister is doing and congratulate him, because I have not yet had a chance to do so officially, on his elevation to his position and the work that he has done so far in this space. However, the aims of the clause need to go alongside a regulatory foundation. The Bill rightly builds that flexibility.
This has been an interesting debate; it has almost had two sides. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown spoke about the need for security, and not uprooting families from their community. I agree with that, and I think we all share the aim of building sustainable communities that enable people to put down roots. They need a home with security of tenure, but equally, a regulatory framework is needed if we are to meet the aim of enabling tenants to escape tenancies that are not working because, say, there is mould, or uninhabitable conditions.
I think quite often of the additional licensing schemes that were available to councils, particularly for houses in multiple occupation. The fights that I have had with my local authority to implement those schemes have driven me to the point of madness at times. Authorities—particularly mine, in Sandwell—have the expertise, in many ways. My authority has admitted to me that it could do that. We need a localised, driven regulatory system.
I think we would all agree that landlords are, broadly, good actors. They want to offer decent, habitable homes, and to have people in them for the long term. That benefits the landlord, because they then get emotional and moral investment in the property, and from a long-term, sustainability perspective it of course makes sense to have that. We do not want to broadbrush the sector in general. However, clearly there are bad actors. We all know about them from our postbags; I certainly see them in the area that I represent. We need a framework that deals with the issues. My hon. Friend the Minister and I have had many positive discussions on this subject, and I know that he is committed to it. The framework should be locally driven, in many respects—I know his commitment to localism—and should enable us to catch these people and drive down the problem.
I fully support what clause 1 does. When a tenant needs to get out because the tenancy is frankly not working and puts them in a dangerous situation, getting out is absolutely the right thing to do.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
The hon. Member mentions selective licensing, which is important. Do we need to review the way that authorities apply for selective licensing? Should there be an assumption that they should have selective licensing for all properties, rather than their having to provide evidence for a license? Many shy away from doing that.
Shaun Bailey
To be honest, I probably want a comprehensive selective system. There are already structures and expertise that would enable us to have that. The hon. Gentleman and I have probably had similar experiences with constituency casework. Something like that could be preventive. I am not saying that the issues we have talked about would not still present themselves—let us face it: they probably always will—but if we can mitigate them, that is what we need to do.
I welcome the clause for a variety of reasons that Members from across the Committee have touched on. It is welcome that it enables tenants to leave more expeditiously, but I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that we need to continue the conversation. The Bill is part of a broader conversation about how we ensure that we do not even get to the point at which the measures are needed, because we have habitable homes, people have somewhere to live safely, and they do not have to fall back on the provisions all the time just to keep themselves safe. The clause is absolutely the right way forward. My hon. Friend the Minister can see that there is support for it from across the Committee. I thank him for hearing me out.
Siobhain McDonagh
I ask the Minister to consider the law of unintended consequences. If the Government delay implementation of the clauses that end section 21 evictions, they could find that landlords who are worried about their ability to evict tenants or have choices will rush for a clause 21 eviction, because they know that at some point section 21 evictions will be ended. The longer it takes the courts to be reformed, in whatever undisclosed way we are considering, the greater that concern will be.
As I said, I see a lot of older long-term assured shorthold tenants being evicted, their landlord rushing them toward the door because they do not want a tenant who has limited means of paying increased rent in the future, and because they are concerned about the news that it will be difficult to evict anyone. The rush for the door is distressing for the people involved, but has the knock-on effect of causing huge problems for local authorities attempting to assist people who are in priority need in terms of homelessness. We are all seeing many more people than usual being evicted via section 21. That has enormous consequences in so many ways.
Mike Amesbury
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Gray. The central plank of the Bill is the abolition of section 21, as everybody in this room knows. We all experience this concern in our postbag and constituencies, yet it seems that the can has been kicked down the road. The changed narrative, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich said, is that the focus is now on court reform, particularly digitalisation.
Thousands of people face evictions. The local authority in my city region, Liverpool City Council, has declared a homelessness emergency. Homelessness is now on an industrial scale. To pick up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden about potential reforms coming down the line in the Bill, including the abolition of section 21, landlords are focusing on that at the moment.
The learned lawyers Giles Peaker and Liz Davies were clear that the court system overall is working. That is certainly not the problem. Reference was made to bailiffs, particularly in the London area. Fundamental to this—I know we all agree—is to end the misery and insecurity for families and children. People increasingly use the private rented sector. The Bill will reward most landlords—good landlords. It is almost a good landlord’s charter in many ways. It needs some amendments and tidying up, but fundamental to the Bill is the abolition of section 21. That should not rely on reform of the courts, which is a red herring that has been influenced by stakeholders, many of them sitting on the Benches in the Chamber. I urge the Minister, who is relatively new in his post—I welcome him to it—to make his mark and do the right thing in the next 12 months or so, while he has the opportunity in government.
The Chair
Before I ask the Minister to reply to the debate, may I make it plain that I have been relatively flexible in this first debate? I will not be so flexible and open-minded subsequently.
Jacob Young
I am grateful to you, Mr Gray, and to the Committee for their consideration. As you and members of the Committee have identified, we plan to debate further a lot of the things that have been discussed already.
I say to concerned hon. Members that the Government are committed to the abolition of section 21. In fact, I am sure the Committee is committed to the abolition of section 21. I invite any hon. Member who is not to speak now or forever hold their peace. That is exactly what we are debating today. No one could expect that the implementation of a brand-new tenancy system would not require reform. Surely all hon. Members agree that we need to get this reform right.
Matthew Pennycook
Can the Minister tell us clearly why the two-stage transition process set out in clause 67 does not afford the Government enough time to make the necessary improvements?
Jacob Young
We will come on to that point when we discuss clause 67. I want to address some of the points that have been raised, particularly the question about bailiffs. HMCTS has already begun making improvements at the bailiff stage, including automated payments for debtors, to reduce the need for doorstep visits in those cases. We are also improving guidance to increase awareness of each party’s rights and responsibilities.
The hon. Member for North Shropshire spoke about the concern raised in evidence about longer fixed-term tenancies. I completely understand the hon. Lady’s position. I understand the genuine concern that she and the people giving evidence have. Our fear, which was rightly identified by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown, is that to include any fixed-term tenancies creates a loophole. We are certain about abolishing section 21, so we do not believe that having a fixed-term tenancy will provide any security to the tenant. It could, in fact, lock a tenant into a property that they would be unable to get out of, even if the property was of poor quality, because the term of their tenancy was fixed. I hope that the hon. Member for North Shropshire can accept that.
I will write to the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown other Committee members specifically on the points raised by the Opposition on new clause 6. I am pleased that there is a consensus on clause 1. We all want to see this measure implemented. I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Abolition of assured shorthold tenancies
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider Government new clause 18—Abandoned premises under assured shorthold tenancies.
Jacob Young
Clause 2 removes the assured shorthold tenancy regime entirely, including section 21 evictions, meaning that in future all tenancies will be assured. Ending these section 21 no-fault evictions will provide tenants with more security and the knowledge that their home is theirs until they choose to leave, or the landlord has a valid reason for possession. It will allow tenants and their families to put down roots, providing them with the stability that we know is a prerequisite for achievement.
Government new clause 18 deals with property abandonment. The Housing and Planning Act 2016 introduced provisions that would allow a landlord of an assured shorthold tenancy to recover possession without a court order if the tenant had abandoned the property, owes more than two months’ rent and the landlord has served three warning notices. Those provisions were never brought into force and we consider they are inconsistent with the intentions of the Bill to provide greater security. Removal of the provisions will help prevent landlords from ending a tenancy without a court order where a property appears to have been empty for a long period. It is possible that, on occasion, a property may appear to have been abandoned, but the tenant is in hospital or caring for relatives. Instead, landlords will need to use one of the specified grounds.
Matthew Pennycook
Let me start by making it clear that the Opposition welcome Government new clause 18. Although I have not been in Parliament long compared with other Members, I have been here long enough to remember sitting on the Bill Committee for the Housing and Planning Act 2016. Part 3 of that Act, which this new clause repeals, was always a foolish provision, and has rightly never been brought into force. We believe it is right that we rid ourselves of what might be termed statutory dead wood.
Clause 2 will remove section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 and, as the Minister made clear, will abolish assured shorthold tenancies and remove mechanisms by which assured social housing tenants can currently be offered ASTs—for example, as starter tenancies—or be downgraded to an AST as a result of antisocial behaviour. The provisions in this clause, as well as those in clause 1, will be brought into force on a date specified by regulations made by the Secretary of State under clause 67. It is appropriate to raise a very specific issue on this clause. We have just discussed court improvements at length. I know that is not the Minister’s brief, and that this is his first Bill, but I have to say to him that his answers on court reform were not adequate. At some point, the Government will have to explain specifically what improvements they wish to see enacted and on what timeline they will be brought into force. Leaving that aside, can the Minister provide further details on precisely how the Government intend to phase in the provisions in this clause? What consideration, if any, has been given to preventing unintended consequences arising from the proposed staged implementation?
The guidance on tenancy reform that the Government published alongside the Bill on 17 May said:
“We will provide at least six months’ notice of our first implementation date after which all new tenancies will be periodic and governed by the new rules”—
that is when they will introduce Part 1, Chapter 1. It continued:
“The date of this will be dependent on when Royal Assent is received”.
I take that to mean that, at some point in the future, a Government Minister will hopefully determine that the court system is, in the their eyes, finally ready to implement the new system—although there is nothing in the Bill to ensure that will happen. He or she would then presumably announce that the first implementation date—that is, the date when all new periodic tenancies come into force—will be six months hence.
I would like the Minister to confirm whether my understanding of how the Government expect the process to develop is correct. If so, can he respond to the concern—the flip side of my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden’s point on a rush to section 21 evictions—that this may create a clear incentive for landlords to offer new tenants a lengthy fixed-term assured tenancy before the new system comes into effect?
If the safeguard in the Government’s mind is that all existing tenancies will transition to the new system on the second implementation date, can the Minister provide any reassurance that the period between the first and second implementation dates will not be overly long? I raise the point because the guidance makes explicit reference to a minimum period between the first and second dates, but does not specify a maximum period after which the second date would have to come into effect. As the Bill stands, it could enable a scenario where all new tenancies become periodic, but there is an extensive period of time where all existing fixed tenancies remain as such. It could be an indefinite period, there is nothing in this Bill to put any time limit on it at all. I look forward to hearing whether the Minister can provide any reassurances in relation to that concern. If he cannot, we may look to table another amendment to account for this loophole, whether it is intended or unintended.
Jacob Young
I thank the hon. Member for his support. He asked about the first and second dates. He is entirely right on the first date—it is six months. The second date is 12 months. I hope that gives him reassurance.
Matthew Pennycook
Just to clarify: as I understand it, 12 months is the minimum. Is the Minister saying that there is a maximum? If not, will the Government consider introducing a maximum? I see the officials shaking their heads. There is no maximum in the Bill. We could have a system where, six months after Royal Assent, all new tenancies become periodic and all existing tenancies could remain fixed indefinitely. What is there in the Bill to prevent an incentive for landlords to rush before the first implementation date to hand out fixed tenancies across the board for very extended periods of time to circumvent the measures in the law?
Jacob Young
Ultimately, we want to bring in these measures as quickly as we can. The system will be in place soon. What I will do to give the hon. Gentleman the assurances he desires is to write to him further. We can agree on that principle and if changes are needed to the Bill, I am happy to consider them.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I want us to give the Minister an opportunity to elaborate on court reform, because it is also relevant to this clause, in terms of when it will be implemented and the indicators as to when it will be implemented. Will he be able to write to us, or publish after the Bill receives Royal Assent, what those clear indicator thresholds are regarding when court reform will be completed, so that it will be clear for everyone? It does not need to be set out in the Bill, but a commitment that the Government will do that, so that everyone will know when that threshold has been met, would be useful.
Jacob Young
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s concern about this point. As I mentioned earlier, I think we will discuss this issue when we debate clause 67, so we can have that debate then.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Changes to grounds for possession
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 145, in clause 3, page 2, line 32, at end insert—
“(aa) after subsection (5) insert—
‘(5ZA) The court shall not make an order for possession under Ground 1 if the court is satisfied that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, greater hardship would be caused by granting the order than by refusing to grant it.’”
This amendment would extend the greater hardship provisions to new Ground 1 (occupation by landlord or family).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 146, in clause 3, page 2, line 32, at end insert—
“(aa) after subsection (5) insert—
‘(5ZA) The court shall not make an order for possession under Ground 1A if the court is satisfied that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, greater hardship would be caused by granting the order than by refusing to grant it.’”
This amendment would extend the greater hardship provisions to new Ground 1A (new grounds for sale of a dwelling-house).
Amendment 150, in clause 3, page 2, line 32, at end insert—
“(aa) After subsection (5) insert—
‘(5ZA) The court shall not make an order for possession under Ground 6A if the court is satisfied that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, greater hardship would be caused by granting the order than by refusing to grant it.’”
This amendment would extend the greater hardship provisions to Ground 6A (ground for possession to allow compliance with enforcement action).
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 3 amends the grounds for possession in schedule 2 to the 1988 Act, by means of the changes set out in schedule 1 to the Bill, which we will debate separately later today. Taken together, amendments 145, 146 and 150 would extend “greater hardship” provisions to three of the mandatory grounds set out in amended schedule 2 to the 1988 Act, namely grounds 1, 1A and 6A.
Ideally, we would have debated these amendments as the last amendments to clause 3, because they are very much our fall-back position if we cannot convince the Government to accept the other changes that we propose to the clause. In due course, we will debate our concerns about several of the revised or new possession grounds provided for by the Bill that can still be fairly categorised as de facto “no fault”. These include grounds 1, 1A and 6A.
In cases where a landlord has proved a discretionary possession ground, a judge must decide whether it is reasonable to make the possession order. In reaching their decision, a judge can consider not just the reason for the possession claim, but anything relevant to the case, including the tenant’s conduct and the likely consequences of eviction for the individual or individuals in question. They can also consider whether the tenant has tried to put things right since the claim was issued. If the judge is not satisfied that it is reasonable to award possession in these discretionary cases, they can dismiss the claim all together. In contrast, if a landlord proceeds on a mandatory ground—I remind the Committee again that proposed new grounds 1, 1A and 6A are mandatory—the judge must make an order, if the landlord has proved their case.
The amendments would give the court very limited discretion, in relation to mandatory grounds 1, 1A and 6A, to consider whether the tenant would suffer greater hardship as a result of the possession order being granted.
Shaun Bailey
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has tabled further amendments on the evidential burden, but does he not appreciate my concern that there is perhaps a little bit of a floodgate situation around appeals on this issue? Notwithstanding his comments about the judicial system and the court system, I am conscious that we may have a scenario where judges’ decisions are challenged and we end up with a backlog. As a result, what the amendment tries to do would either be delayed, or would end up in a system of appeal after appeal, because clearly the result would be down to a judge’s subjective decision, based on the evidence in front of them at the time.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Perhaps I have not explained myself clearly. These amendments do not provide for an appeals process. As I have tried to make clear, when it comes to a discretionary possession ground, judges can weigh up the evidence. That is not the case for a mandatory ground. The amendment provides for not an appeal process, but discretion for the court and the judge to consider whether their decision would cause greater hardship to the tenant. I will come on to explain how that would work.
Shaun Bailey
To clarify my point, I am aware that the amendment is not about an appeals process. However, as the hon. Gentleman will know, an application for appeal can be made against any judge’s decision, and that application can be granted by the superior courts, so the process is not immune from appeal; decisions can be taken to appeal. That is a right, which would be granted, and it could be achieved through another part of the system. I just wanted to clarify my position on that point.
Matthew Pennycook
It is an interesting debate, but not particularly pertinent to the amendments. It is not my understanding that a mandatory possession ground order can be appealed. If it can, then I think that the instances in which it can are vanishingly small. However, that is not what these amendments seek to do. They purely seek to protect very vulnerable tenants who might suffer great hardship as a result of the court’s decision.
The starting point for the court would remain that the landlord in question has proved his or her intention to either occupy the property under ground 1 or sell it under ground 1A, or the need to respond to enforcement action under ground 6A. In other words, the presumption would be that a possession order will be made, and in most cases it would be. However, the amendments would provide tenants with the opportunity to demonstrate to the court—not at appeal, but at a hearing of the court—that their eviction on any of the three grounds in question would lead to hardship greater than that of the landlord or, in the case of amended ground 1, potentially the landlord’s family. If the judge determined that the hardships each party is likely to experience were the same, under these amendments, the tenants would not succeed, and the possession order would still be made. However, if the tenant could prove to a court that they or a member of their household would suffer greater hardship than the landlord or the landlord’s family if a possession order were made, the court could refuse to make the possession order.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I rise to support these three amendments. Amendment 150 is, of course, inextricably linked to amendment 149, which we will come on to shortly. I want to talk about the protections, particularly against ground 6A, which is a ground for possession to allow compliance with an enforcement action, fundamentally so that conditions for the tenants can be improved. Enforcement action is almost impossible unless tenants co-operate with it. There is a real danger that ground 6A will be used as a quasi-punishment for tenants who have co-operated—tenants who have said, “This house has a massive hole in the ceiling”—
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I am speaking to amendment 150, which relates to ground 6A, about greater hardship. The next group is about the court having mitigating measures other than eviction. They could have been clustered differently—
The Chair
Quite right. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman; he knows much more about it than I do.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Thank you, Mr Gray.
We have a problem here. It is important that the court is able to weigh up where the greater hardship is. Is it a greater hardship to evict a tenant who has complained to the council so that the property can be fixed? Or is the ground being used to get rid of a tenant who is constantly complaining about enforcement action? Without an element of discretion—other amendments would afford wider discretion—and without this particular measure on greater hardship, there is a danger that ground 6A could be misused. That is why it would be good to hear reassurance from the Minister, particularly on amendment 150, that advice and guidance will be provided to the courts to ensure that the ground is not manipulated or abused, and that the Government are considering other changes to prevent that.
Jacob Young
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I thank the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for his amendments 145, 146 and 150. As has been discussed, the amendments look to make grounds 1, 1A and 6A discretionary.
Matthew Pennycook
To clarify, the amendments do not seek to make those grounds discretionary in any case. We accept that they are mandatory. We believe that the amendments would allow those mandatory grounds to be used in almost every case, unless great hardship would result from them. They do not make those three possession grounds discretionary.
Jacob Young
However, judges would be required to assess whether possession would cause greater hardship than not. We think that would count as making the grounds discretionary.
The changes would add significant uncertainty to the system. It is right that landlords should have confidence in the process, and can manage their properties, including when they want to move into or sell a property. The uncertainty that the amendments would cause means that landlords may simply choose not to rent their properties in the first place if they know that they may want to move into or sell a property in future. That would reduce the vital supply of homes in the private rented sector. In the case of ground 6A, on enforcement compliance, if possession is not granted, the landlord would continue to be in breach of their obligations, and could face fines and other penalties. Given the adverse consequences that the amendments would cause, I hope that the hon. Member will withdraw them.
Matthew Pennycook
I am disappointed by the Minister’s response. I welcome the clarification he gave. The amendments would introduce a limited amount of discretion. We would argue that they do not make the grounds discretionary—it is a point of debate—but introduce a limited amount of discretion into the system. However, we trust judges in county courts to make these decisions in most cases. The amendments would put the burden on the tenant to prove great hardship, and make the presumption that the mandatory ground award will be issued in most cases.
I will bring the Minister back to some of the hypothetical scenarios I gave. We absolutely agree with the Government that landlords need robust possession grounds to take their properties back. In one of my hypothetical examples, the Bill would allow a terminally ill cancer patient to be evicted and put at risk of homelessness, just because the landlord wished to sell. They may have no need to sell; they might own eight properties and wish to sell one or two of them. In limited circumstances and cases, we should give the judges a bit of discretion. Otherwise, some very vulnerable and in-need tenants will evicted through these means.
I am disappointed that the Government have not accepted the amendments. I hope that they go away and think about them, but I will not push them to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 149, in clause 3, page 2, line 32, at end insert—
“(aa) After subsection (5) insert—
‘(5ZA) The court shall not make an order for possession under Ground 6A if the court considers that it is not just and equitable to do so, having regard to alternative courses of action available to the landlord or the local housing authority, which may include—
(a) a management order under Part 4 of the Housing Act 2004;
(b) in relation to paragraphs (b) and (f) of Ground 6A, other measures which are more appropriate for reducing the extent of overcrowding or the number of households in the dwelling-house, as the case may be;
(c) in relation to paragraph (c) of Ground 6A, the provision of suitable alternative accommodation for the tenant, whether under section 39 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 or otherwise; and
(d) in relation to paragraphs (d) and (e), other means of enforcement available to the local housing authority in respect of the landlord’s default;
and having regard to all the circumstances, including whether the situation has occurred as a result of an act or default of the landlord.’”
This amendment would permit a court to refuse to make a possession order under Ground 6A where a more appropriate course of action exists.
One of the changes made to schedule 2 to the 1988 Act by the clause, as we briefly discussed, is the introduction of a new ground for possession to allow compliance with an enforcement action. The new mandatory ground 6A will require the court to award possession if a landlord seeking possession needs to end a tenancy because enforcement action has been taken against the landlord, and it would be unlawful for them to maintain the tenancy.
The relevant enforcement actions (a) to (f) are set out on page 73 of the Bill. They include situations where a landlord has been issued with
“a banning order under section 16 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016…an improvement notice under section 11 or 12 of the Housing Act 2004”
and
“a prohibition order under section 20 or 21 of the Housing Act 2004”.
We take no issue with the fact that the Bill introduces the new mandatory power. Clearly there are circumstances in which landlords will require possession of a property in order to comply with enforcement action.
We wrestled with what should be the minimum notice period that applies to the new ground, given that it feels somewhat perverse to provide for a mechanism by which possession can be gained quickly when the reason for the possession being granted is that the landlord has fallen foul of an obligation under housing health and safety legislation, particularly if it resulted in a banning or prohibition order. As we will come to discuss, we ultimately determined to argue in amendment 136 for a four-month minimum notice period in relation to ground 6A, because in all the situations set out on page 73 of the Bill, the tenant will be evicted because of neglect or default on the part of the landlord. In other words, it is a de facto no-fault ground for eviction that will punish tenants and put them at risk of homelessness because of bad practice on the part of a landlord, particularly as there is no requirement for the landlord to provide suitable alternative accommodation.
Amendment 149 seeks to provide tenants with a measure of protection in such circumstances—this touches directly on the point the Minister made on the previous group of amendments—by giving the court the power to consider whether the relevant enforcement can be met by means other than the eviction of the sitting tenant or tenants, including through a management order under the Housing Act 2004 or the provision of alternative accommodation. If the court judges that the enforcement objectives can be met by other means, the amendment would give the court the power to refuse to make a possession order on the grounds that it is not just and equitable to do so in the circumstances, given that there are other means of ensuring that the enforcement action is complied with.
We believe that the amendment would provide tenants with stronger protection in circumstances where they are victims of poor practice on the part of a landlord. Importantly, it would also ensure that tenants have an incentive to seek enforcement action through their local authority if their home is in a very poor condition or is non-compliant with HMO licensing schemes. That would address the fact that, as things stand, the introduction of the new mandatory no-fault ground with only two months’ notice is likely to actively discourage tenants from doing so. I hope the Minister will give the amendment serious consideration.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Following on from the debate on the last group of amendments, I want to add my concern about ground 6A. Where there are issues with fire or flood, landlords are often expected to find alternative accommodation before a house is vacated, but there is no such provision when enforcement action has to be taken. There is a real worry that a landlord who has multiple properties that are perfectly fit for habitation might seek to punish tenants who have pushed for enforcement, rather than moving them into those properties. That seems wrong, so it is important to require the courts to go through a checklist of other options that the landlord has to consider before they get to ground 6A.
The amendment also provides a checklist for landlords. They can go down it and say, “Okay, I need to comply with enforcement action. Have I considered these things?” It also allows the local authority to consider other courses that they could pursue, such as management orders. We do not want tenants punished. Although revenge evictions are illegal, we know that they happen time and again, because there are loopholes in the law. Closing those loopholes is important, and a statement from the Minister on the matter might suffice.
Jacob Young
I thank hon. Members for their comments. Amendment 149 would require judges to consider whether there are suitable alternative courses of action available before granting possession under ground 6A, which permits a landlord to evict if evicting a tenant is the only way that they can comply with enforcement action taken by a local authority. That includes cases in which, disgracefully, a landlord has received a banning order, meaning they are unable to continue operating as a landlord. It also includes situations in which a prohibition order is incompatible with the tenant’s continuing to occupy the property. The ground is mandatory, so there is certainty that possession will be granted to the landlord and they can comply with enforcement action taken against them. That means that tenants will not be left living in unsafe situations and gives local authorities confidence that their enforcement action demands can be adhered to.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Will the Minister clarify that when courts grant possession under ground 6A, they will have to take into consideration whether that is the only option, and whether other options might be on the table? Confirmation of that would help courts’ deliberations in future.
Jacob Young
I should be clear that the landlords who are subject to enforcement action are the rogues; they are the people we are trying to root out of the system through the Bill. They are unlikely to be able to provide the suitable alternative accommodation that the hon. Member mentioned. If things get to this stage, they are that bad. We therefore do not feel that we can accept amendment 149, and I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will withdraw it.
Matthew Pennycook
I have been on enough Bill Committees to know that the Minister has been sent out with explicit instructions to resist amendments—we all understand that—but the Government will have to grapple with the Bill’s weaknesses regarding how the new possession grounds will affect tenants who are not at fault. They could clearly be affected by a landlord’s using ground 6A—a ground that I find perverse, because it allows for possession where the landlord is at fault.
The Minister gave the game away when he said that 6A can be used only when it is the only way that the landlord can comply with an enforcement order. Well, we could leave it to the court to make that determination under the amendment. If possession is the only way that the landlord can comply with an enforcement order, the court will grant the possession order, but there will be cases in which it is not the only way, and the Minister said that he encourages local authorities to explore those other means. I would say that, in those circumstances, encouragement is not enough. We need some provision to ensure that all alternatives are completely exhausted before this very severe mandatory ground—we are talking about eviction and potential homelessness—is brought into force.
Jacob Young
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point on board, but as I have outlined, these are landlords who are subject to enforcement action. Does he accept that such landlords should not be operating in the private rented sector anyway, and that this ground allows us to root out those bad landlords?
Matthew Pennycook
I think the Minister has to be very careful on that point. It depends on what the enforcement action is, and on the degree to which the landlord is at fault. The enforcement action could relate to a breach under the housing health and safety rating system that merely needs to be rectified before the landlord can continue to rent as an appropriate and good-faith landlord; or it could relate to a very severe enforcement ground, as the Minister described. I come back to the point I made when moving the amendment: there are other enforcement powers that could deal with those types of landlords. I gave the example of a management order under the 2004 Act. There are ways that local authorities could enforce that do not require a mandatory possession ground order to be awarded. All we are saying is: give the courts the discretion to decide that.
If the Government are not minded to give the courts that discretion, there are other ways that the clause might be changed. The local authority might be required to have first exhausted other grounds before the landlord can issue a 6A notice. Let us find a way of protecting tenants who are not at fault from being evicted by landlords. In this situation, landlords, not tenants, are to blame, and they could abuse this new mandatory ground in ways that will have detrimental consequences for tenants.
I hope that the Minister has taken that point on board. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
Order. Technically, the hon. Gentleman is moving only amendment 138; the other amendments are merely being debated.
Matthew Pennycook
I like having a stickler in the Chair. I prefer it to having a non-stickler.
I beg to move amendment 138, in clause 3, page 3, line 3, at end insert—
“(5C) (a) Where the court makes an order for possession on Grounds 1 or 1A in Schedule 2 to this Act (whether with or without other grounds), the order shall include a provision requiring the landlord to file evidence at court and to serve the same on the tenant, any other defendant, and the local housing authority for the district where the dwelling is located no later than sixteen weeks from the date of the order.
(b) The evidence referred to in paragraph (a) must—
(i) give details of the state of occupation of the dwelling-house since the date of the order,
(ii) give details of the progress of any sale of the dwelling-house, and
(iii) be verified by a statement of truth signed by the landlord.”
This amendment would require a landlord to evidence the progress toward occupation or sale of a property obtained under grounds of possession 1 or 1A no later than 16 weeks after the date of the order and to verify this by a statement of truth.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 139, in clause 3, page 3, line 4, at end insert—
“(2A) After section 7 of the 1988 Act insert—
‘7A Evidential requirements for Grounds 1 and 1A
(1) The court shall not make an order for possession on Grounds 1 or 1A in Schedule 2 to this Act unless the landlord has complied with the relevant provisions of subsections (2) to (4).
(2) Where the landlord relies on Grounds 1 or 1A, the claim must be supported by evidence which is verified by a statement of truth signed by the landlord.
(3) Where the landlord relies on Ground 1 and the dwelling-house is required by a member of the landlord’s family as defined in paragraphs 2(b) to (d) of that Ground, the claim must also be supported by evidence which is verified by a statement of truth signed by that family member.
(4) Where the landlord relies on Ground 1A, the evidence referred to in subsection (2) must include a letter of engagement from a solicitor or estate agent concerning the sale of the dwelling-house.’”
This amendment would require a landlord seeking possession of a property on the Grounds of occupation or selling to evidence and verify in advance via a statement of truth.
Amendment 143, in schedule 1, page 65, line 10, leave out “6 months” and insert “2 years”.
Amendments 143 and 144 would prohibit evictions under grounds 1 and 1A within two years of the beginning of a tenancy.
Amendment 192, in schedule 1, page 65, line 10, after “6 months” insert
“or 6 months have elapsed since rent was last increased”.
This amendment would prohibit evictions under Ground 1 within 6 months of each rent increase giving periodic protection at each rent renewal.
Amendment 203, in schedule 1, page 65, line 29, at end insert new unnumbered paragraph—
“Where this ground is used no rent will be due in the final two months of the tenancy.”
This amendment would ensure when a no-fault eviction on Ground 1 is used tenants would not pay rent for the final two months of the tenancy.
Government amendments 2 to 3.
Amendment 144, in schedule 1, page 66, line 6, leave out “6 months” and insert “2 years”.
Amendments 143 and 144 would prohibit evictions under grounds 1 and 1A within two years of the beginning of a tenancy.
Amendment 193, in schedule 1, page 66, line 6, after “6 months” insert
“or 6 months have elapsed since rent was last increased”.
This amendment would prohibit evictions under Ground 1A within 6 months of each rent increase giving periodic protection at each rent renewal.
Government amendments 4 and 5.
Amendment 194, in schedule 1, page 66, line 23, at end insert—
“(e) the landlord has offered to sell the property to the current tenant at the same value at which the landlord intends to list the property for public sale and the tenant has informed the landlord within four weeks of receiving the offer from the landlord that the tenant does not intend to buy the property at this value.”
This amendment would require landlords wishing to issue a notice for possession on the basis of Ground 1A to offer the current tenants the right to buy the property at the intended listing value before it goes onto the market.
Amendment 204, in schedule 1, page 66, line 24, at end insert new unnumbered paragraph—
“Where this ground is used no rent will be due in the final two months of the tenancy.”
This amendment would ensure when a no-fault eviction on Ground 1A is used tenants would not pay rent for the final two months of the tenancy.
Matthew Pennycook
As we have already discussed, clause 3 amends the grounds for possession in schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988, by means of the changes set out in schedule 1 to the Bill. Paragraph 2 of schedule 1 sets out revisions to the existing mandatory ground 1. Under the existing ground 1, a court is required to award possession of a property if the landlord requires it to live in as their “only or principal home” or if they have previously lived in it on either basis. Under ground 1 as amended by the Bill, a court is required to award possession if the landlord requires the property for use as their only or principal home, but also if they require it for such use for members of their immediate family, for their spouse or civil partner or for a person with whom they live
“as if they were married or in a civil partnership”,
or for that person’s immediate family, such as the child or parent of a partner in those terms. Under the existing ground 1, landlords are required to provide tenants with prior notice that the ground may be used. This requirement is absent from ground 1 as amended by the Bill.
In turn, paragraph 3 of schedule 1 inserts a new mandatory ground 1A into schedule 2 to the 1988 Housing Act. Under this new ground, a court would be required to award possession, with limited exceptions, if the landlord intends to sell the property. We believe very strongly that there is a clear risk that both of these de facto no-fault grounds for eviction could be abused in several ways by unscrupulous landlords. I want to be very clear that we believe that only a minority of landlords are unscrupulous and may act in these terms.
In her evidence last week, Samantha Stewart, chief executive of the Nationwide Foundation, provided us with the example of just how these grounds are being abused in the Scottish context. She gave an example of a renter named Luke, who lived in a property with rats and maggots falling out of the ceiling. The landlord refused to act on the complaint but was eventually forced to do so by the Scottish tribunal. Shortly afterward, however, Luke was served an eviction notice using the new landlord circumstance possession grounds. As soon as the prohibited re-let period was up, they moved a new tenant in.
The risk of these grounds being abused is clearly not a point of difference between us and the Government. Ministers clearly accept that amended ground 1 and new ground 1A could be used as a form of section 21 by the backdoor, because the Bill contains provision to attempt to prohibit their misuse by preventing landlords from re-letting or re-marketing a property, or authorising an agent to do so on their behalf, within three months of obtaining possession on either ground. We will debate the adequacy of those no-let provisions when we get to clause 10 and press our amendment 140 to extend the proposed period, but it is enough to know at this stage that the Government felt it necessary to include such safeguards in the Bill. We can take it as given that their decision to do so is evidence of a clear understanding that there is potential risk of abuse along the lines I described.
In addition to strengthening the no-let provisions in the Bill, we believe tenants require protection from the misuse of grounds 1 and 1A in two other important respects. First, we believe there needs to be a greater burden of proof placed on landlords who issue their tenants notices seeking possession on either of these grounds. As the Bill is drafted, at any point after the protected period is ended a landlord can simply issue their tenant with a mandatory ground 1 or 1A notice, and a county court would be required to award them possession. When it comes to expanded ground 1, there is no requirement for the landlord to evidence whether they actually require the use of the property for themselves; or, if they do not, which family member or members or person connected to them does.
Similarly, when it comes to new ground 1A, there is no requirement for the landlord to evidence that they are trying in good faith to sell a property after possession has been awarded. The risk to tenants should be obvious: six months after the start of a tenancy, when the protected period ends, a model tenant who is not at fault in any way—but who, for example, complains about damp and mould in a property—could be evicted with just two months’ notice using these grounds, without any need for the landlord to verify through evidence that they are using these landlord circumstances legitimately.
As the chief executive of the Legal Action Group and chair of the Renters’ Reform Coalition, Sue James, argued in her evidence last week, there is no indication at present that landlords will have to provide much, if anything, in the way of evidence. Although the Government have made noises to that effect, as things stand we do not know what that evidence might consist of.
The case for requiring landlords to provide evidence is obvious. As Samantha Stewart argued in her evidence,
“landlords using grounds 1 and 1A—moving in and selling—should be required to provide adequate and appropriate evidence”.––[Official Report, Renters (Reform) Public Bill Committee, 16 November 2023; c. 127, Q170.]
Amendments 138 and 139 are designed to address that deficiency by requiring relevant evidence to be submitted both prior to an eviction and after one has taken place. Amendment 139 would require a landlord seeking possession on the grounds of occupation or selling to evidence and verify that they are doing so in advance of a possession order via a statement of truth or, in the case of sale, by means of a letter of engagement from a solicitor or estate agent. That mirrors provisions in the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016, which require the landlord to provide specific evidence proving his or her intention to sell.
Amendment 138 would require a landlord to evidence progress towards occupation or sale of a property obtained under grounds 1 and 1A no later than 16 weeks after the date of the order, and to submit that to the court and—most importantly, because they will be the enforcement bodies under the Bill—local authorities.
The clear benefit of amending the Bill to include those evidential requirements in respect of grounds 1 and 1A would be their deterrent effect—the consequences to any landlord of being found guilty of lying to a court, in terms of litigation and potential liability for damages. At present, after an eviction takes place on either of those grounds, either because of the tenant leaving voluntarily or the court issuing a possession award, the Government are proposing only two means of redress: local authority enforcement action or a compensation award, issued by the new ombudsman. The Bill provides only a framework for the new landlord redress scheme, so the ombudsman is still largely an unknown quantity, and there are well-known issues, attested to in the evidence that several witnesses gave last week, about the efficacy of local authority enforcement.
We believe that rent repayment orders have a role to play, but those evidential requirements and the deterrent effect they would have on unscrupulous landlords seeking to abuse grounds 1 and 1A would strengthen the Bill and ensure that tenants are better protected. We urge the Government to give them due consideration.
Secondly, we believe that the proposed protected period of six months during which a tenant cannot be evicted under either of these grounds is insufficient. The explanatory notes accompanying the Bill state that the protections mirror those that tenants currently receive. That is true, but the current protections, as Liz Davies KC made clear in her evidence to the Committee, reflect the assured shorthold tenancy regime, which the Bill is abolishing. The decision to mirror the current protected period also fails to take into account the fact that ground 1A is a new mandatory ground, and that ground 1 has been amended such that the previous requirement to serve a notice that it may be relied upon prior to the start of the tenancy has been removed. As the Bill is drafted, a landlord can let a property to a tenant, provide them with no prior notice whatsoever that they may in future wish to rely on either ground 1 or 1A, and then serve them with a notice at four months.
We believe that any landlord likely to use ground 1 or 1A in good faith will have some prior awareness that they or a family member may need the property for use at some point in the coming years, or that they may wish to sell it in the near future. As such, and because the Government have chosen to remove the prior notice requirement that currently applies to ground 1, we believe that there is a strong case for extending the protected period with respect to grounds 1 and 1A from six months to two years, allowing landlords to first serve notice under either of them 22 months after a tenancy begins. Taken together, amendments 143 and 144 would extend the proposed protected periods accordingly.
These four amendments, while retaining mandatory grounds 1 and 1A as the Bill proposes, would go a long way to preventing and deterring abuse of the kind that we fear will occur fairly regularly if these possession grounds remain unchanged. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to them as well as further information about the four Government clauses.
Ms Buck
I rise briefly to speak in support of the amendments, which seek to address two key themes. One is that tenants start disproportionately from a position of lack of power, and a large minority of tenants are in a position where they are limited by their access to advice and representation and a lack of alternative accommodation. They are frequently unable, without stronger legislative protection, to exercise their rights against the landlords who abuse their role.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I support amendments 138, 139, 143 and 144, which would require evidence to be given when using grounds 1 and 1A. While that is important, I again think—I always live in hope—that some clarity from the Minister about the courts being required to obtain at least the first part of that evidence could achieve this without that necessarily being written in the Bill. I believe that the second part would need some legislative clarity, which is why the amendment is useful.
However, let us be clear: it is a crime to knowingly make a false statement to the court. We need to make it clear to landlords that that crime will be followed up. It can only be followed up if we then determine that the property was not then taken into possession and that there was no malicious element to it—there can be other reasons, of course. Without that element of enforcement, and therefore knowing what has happened in a number of months’ time, that will never happen. This could quite easily be implemented through the property portal sending automatic messages to the court, which would not overburden our court process. I again ask for some clarity from the Minister that this is how the property portal and court reform is intended to work. That would probably alleviate some of these issues.
I have tabled a number of other amendments in this group, which I would also like to speak to. The first one would provide for the six-month protection to be renewed on the basis of rent renewals. At the moment, a lot of assured shorthold tenancies—not all of them, Mr Gray, I grant you, but probably the majority of them—have rent renewal clauses, such that that when the rent is increased, there is a new tenancy. The landlord will say, “I’m increasing your rent. Please sign the new tenancy for the year ahead.” Every year, the landlord says, “Well, you’re moving on to the periodic. I would quite like you to sign the new tenancy with the new rent.” That is what happens for most of my constituents who are in the most precarious part of the market, which we are trying to address. That gives them six months’ protection every year, on an ongoing basis, every time their rent is increased.
I know that the National Residential Landlords Association has described this idea as bonkers, but I think that is because it does not quite understand what I am trying to get at here, which is to retain what we already have currently. Although it seems that the Bill is increasing the protection of tenants—and the security of landlords, by knowing that the tenant will be there for a period—the danger is that it will reduce it because, de facto, most tenants currently have six months protection in every 12. The proposed change would provide six months’ protection over an indefinite period, which is clearly far less. Six divided by infinity is an impossible mathematical equation, but it is clearly less than six months divided by 12.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Quite right: zero protection—well, it is mathematically zero, but I think we all know that six months’ protection is a bit more than that—so there needs to be something.
When a landlord comes along on that annual date, the landlord might say, “I don’t want to make any changes. I don’t want to increase the rent.” Then, to some extent, the question is: why should any further protection be afforded? But if the landlord comes along and says, “I want to increase your rent,” and the tenant agrees that they are going to increase the rent—it does not go to a tribunal; it is all agreed—it seems quite reasonable to ensure protection on both sides, for example to provide for a new six-month protection period, just as happens at the moment.
That is why I have tabled these amendments, because I do not think it is in anyone’s interest for tenants suddenly to be leaving. Although the six-month protection does not prevent tenants from leaving, it does produce a mindset that the tenancy is now at least fixed for six months, based on what the landlord is offering and the higher amount that the tenant is now offering to pay. I do not think that is unreasonable, and I would love to see the Government accept the principle of it. If not—of course, I am not foolish, but there is always wishful thinking—it would be useful to hear an indication from the Government of which measures they think might be put in place to ensure that rolling protection.
The other amendment that I wish to speak to concerns the ability for a tenant to be offered the property before it is for sale. If it is a genuine sale, on the open market—the amendments would require a solicitor’s letter or an estate agent’s letter; I think that is reasonable and fair enough—no landlord would have any problem with making this offer for a short period. In my experience of selling houses, it takes more than four weeks between interest and getting it on the market anyway. I am talking about the landlord offering it to the tenant at the rate at which they are going to initially list it on the market. The landlord might reduce what it is on the market for later, because of market factors. I am not saying that that needs to be taken into account. All I am saying is that the initial listing should be offered to the tenant—a right of first refusal—in those four weeks. Again, I do not think this is unreasonable. Of course, in the majority of cases, the tenant will not be in a position to buy; but if, in a small number of cases, we can prevent turmoil and give the landlord a quick sale, it is in everyone’s interest to do so.
Again, I am not delusional and do not think that the Minister will accept this proposal, but I hope that the Minister might indicate how he will be encouraging, through court papers, potentially, and court reform, all those questions to be asked, just as we saw during covid, when court papers required the landlord to ask whether the tenant had been affected by covid. That was not a Bill change—a law change—but it was in the court papers. I am talking about how the question could be asked in court papers. There does not necessarily need to be a change in the discretionary grounds, but the very fact of asking the question could change the mindsets of landlords and, I think, is important.
Finally, under amendments 204 and 203, which I have also tabled, no rent would be required for two months—
Renters (Reform) Bill (Sixth sitting)
Tuesday 21st November 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Renters (Reform) Bill 2022-23 View all Renters (Reform) Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 November 2023 - (21 Nov 2023)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 139, in clause 3, page 3, line 4, at end insert—
“(2A) After section 7 of the 1988 Act insert—
‘7A Evidential requirements for Grounds 1 and 1A
(1) The court shall not make an order for possession on Grounds 1 or 1A in Schedule 2 to this Act unless the landlord has complied with the relevant provisions of subsections (2) to (4).
(2) Where the landlord relies on Grounds 1 or 1A, the claim must be supported by evidence which is verified by a statement of truth signed by the landlord.
(3) Where the landlord relies on Ground 1 and the dwelling-house is required by a member of the landlord’s family as defined in paragraphs 2(b) to (d) of that Ground, the claim must also be supported by evidence which is verified by a statement of truth signed by that family member.
(4) Where the landlord relies on Ground 1A, the evidence referred to in subsection (2) must include a letter of engagement from a solicitor or estate agent concerning the sale of the dwelling-house.’”
This amendment would require a landlord seeking possession of a property on the Grounds of occupation or selling to evidence and verify in advance via a statement of truth.
Amendment 143, in schedule 1, page 65, line 10, leave out “6 months” and insert “2 years”.
Amendments 143 and 144 would prohibit evictions under grounds 1 and 1A within two years of the beginning of a tenancy.
Amendment 192, in schedule 1, page 65, line 10, after “6 months” insert
“or 6 months have elapsed since rent was last increased”.
This amendment would prohibit evictions under Ground 1 within 6 months of each rent increase giving periodic protection at each rent renewal.
Amendment 203, in schedule 1, page 65, line 29, at end insert new unnumbered paragraph—
“Where this ground is used no rent will be due in the final two months of the tenancy.”
This amendment would ensure when a no-fault eviction on Ground 1 is used tenants would not pay rent for the final two months of the tenancy.
Government amendments 2 and 3.
Amendment 144, in schedule 1, page 66, line 6, leave out “6 months” and insert “2 years”.
Amendments 143 and 144 would prohibit evictions under grounds 1 and 1A within two years of the beginning of a tenancy.
Amendment 193, in schedule 1, page 66, line 6, after “6 months” insert
“or 6 months have elapsed since rent was last increased”.
This amendment would prohibit evictions under Ground 1A within 6 months of each rent increase giving periodic protection at each rent renewal.
Government amendments 4 and 5.
Amendment 194, in schedule 1, page 66, line 23, at end insert—
“(e) the landlord has offered to sell the property to the current tenant at the same value at which the landlord intends to list the property for public sale and the tenant has informed the landlord within four weeks of receiving the offer from the landlord that the tenant does not intend to buy the property at this value.”
This amendment would require landlords wishing to issue a notice for possession on the basis of Ground 1A to offer the current tenants the right to buy the property at the intended listing value before it goes onto the market.
Amendment 204, in schedule 1, page 66, line 24, at end insert new unnumbered paragraph—
“Where this ground is used no rent will be due in the final two months of the tenancy.”
This amendment would ensure when a no-fault eviction on Ground 1A is used tenants would not pay rent for the final two months of the tenancy.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown was on his feet, but I think he had nearly completed his remarks, and he is not here, so I call the Minister to reply.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Jacob Young)
I thank hon. Members for their contributions so far, and for the amendments. As we discussed, we all agree that the removal of section 21 will give tenants more security in their home. Tenants will know that landlords can evict them only when they have a legitimate reason to do so. It is also vital that the new grounds give landlords the confidence to continue renting out their properties, rather than leaving them empty, if they might wish to sell or move in.
If a landlord goes to court to seek possession, a judge will determine whether the ground has been met, based on the evidence provided. We do not think it is necessary to prescribe in legislation what the evidence is, because a judge will always be best placed to determine, based on what is in front of them, whether the landlord intends to occupy or sell the property.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
The question is why it would not be useful for a judge to base that professional, informed decision on criteria that are in front of them.
Jacob Young
We feel that it is best to give the courts the power to make the decision themselves, rather than prescribing that in legislation. Of course, following Royal Assent, we will publish secondary legislation and guidance. I hope that that gives the hon. Member the assurance that he is looking for.
We will issue guidance to help landlords understand what type of evidence they may choose to provide. It would not be appropriate to be too prescriptive about that in legislation; that might inadvertently suggest that other evidence may not be sufficient. The decision is best determined by a judge on a case-by-case basis. I therefore ask that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich withdraw his amendment.
With regards to amendments 143, 144, 192 and 193, we thought long and hard while developing these reforms about getting the right balance between tenant security and landlords’ ability to move into or sell their homes. We believe that having a six-month period at the start of the tenancy during which landlords cannot use the grounds provides the right balance. A longer period risks landlords not making their properties available for rent and reduces the supply of much-needed homes. Landlords also need the flexibility that periodic tenancies allow, and our proposals strike the right balance.
On amendment 194, although we encourage landlords to consider selling to or with sitting tenants, landlords must have the ultimate decision over who they wish to sell their property to. Giving a tenant first refusal could prevent the landlord selling if, for example, they already had a buyer in mind. It could also cause delays in the public sale process and therefore financial hardship to the landlord.
On amendments 203 and 204, the Government do not believe in penalising landlords by mandating that tenants be entitled to a rent-free period at the end of their tenancy. Landlords looking to move into or sell their property may themselves be in financial difficulty, and amendments 203 and 204 could exacerbate that. By disincentivising landlords’ investment in the sector, the amendments would introduce uncertainty and ultimately be detrimental to tenants. On that basis, I ask that the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown, not move the amendments.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
I want to ask about a two-month no-rent period. The Government must recognise that there is a huge cost to tenants who have to move out through no fault of their own. Does the Minister not think that there should be some alleviation of that cost? For example, if a tenant finds another property during the two-month notice period, they should not be bound to pay two months’ rent. They have been forced to leave through no fault of their own, and should not have to pay double rent; that would be totally unfair. Does the Minister have views on that?
Jacob Young
I accept the hon. Gentleman’s argument and understand the sincerity with which he makes it. We are trying to strike a balance throughout this Bill between tenants’ rights and landlords’ rights. A landlord may choose to evict someone on the grounds that they wish to sell their property, for example, and then be unable to sell their property; if we were to follow the hon. Gentleman’s logic, that landlord would be without rent for two months during the notice period, and three months during the refusal-to-let-again period before being able to put their property back on the market, given that they had been unable to sell their property. I do not think it is fair that if landlords were to pursue that course of action, they could be five months’ rent out of pocket.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
May I press the Minister on that point? If a tenant leaves within the two-month notice period, does the Minister really think that they should be bound to pay those two months’ rent, even though they have been kicked out and have found another property, and relinquished the property to the landlord sooner than the landlord asked them to? Surely they should not be liable for that amount of money.
Jacob Young
Again, I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. We are trying to strike the right balance in these reforms. That is all I can say on that.
Government amendments 2 to 5 deliver technical changes that will ensure that grounds for possession work as intended, allowing the selling ground to apply to both freeholders and leaseholders who wish to sell their interest in their property. The changes to possession ground 1A are slight, and ensure that the selling ground for private landlords applies to all circumstances where it would be reasonable to consider the landlord to be selling their property, and ensuring that their valid desire to manage their property as they see fit is not unintentionally thwarted. These small changes will ensure that the selling ground works as intended.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
We are disappointed with the Minister’s response, for the following reasons.
We will, no doubt, hear ad nauseam about the Government’s intention and the obvious need, with which we all agree, to get the balance right between the interests of landlords and tenants. We do not think the Government have got that balance quite right in this and many other areas of the Bill.
It is, of course, reasonable that landlords who legitimately want to use grounds 1 and 1A either to take back a property for themselves or a family member, or to sell it, should be able to. We take no issue with the mandatory grounds. However, the Minister has failed to address Labour Members’ arguments about the clear risk of those mandatory grounds being abused in several ways. We know that they are being abused in Scotland, where they have already been introduced—that is the proof point here—and there are several other layers of protection in Scotland that this Bill does not provide.
The Government know that there is a risk of these grounds being abused; they would not otherwise have the three-month no-let period. We have clearly identified the loopholes that exist as a result of there being no evidential requirement, unlike in Scotland. Evidence suggests that the Scottish provisions are still open to abuse, but Scotland at least has the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016, which requires the landlord to provide specific evidence. That is not the case here. The Minister makes the point that it is for judges to make a determination, but grounds 1 and 1A are mandatory grounds. The judge literally just has to determine whether the landlord has proved that ground 1 or 1A applies. The judge does not assess the merits of the case, as they would if these were discretionary grounds. Judges do not have the freedom to say that they do not think the landlord is legitimately taking back the property. As we have argued, at the end of four months of the protected period, any landlord can, under these grounds, serve notice or evict on the pretence that they will use the property for themselves or sell it, but they can then not sell it; nothing prevents that.
Jacob Young
On the hon. Gentleman’s point about providing evidence to a court, a judge would have to determine whether the intention to sell the property is valid.
Matthew Pennycook
I will happily give way to the Minister again if he can say how the judge would prove an intent to sell or occupy the property without evidential requirements. The judge does not have to ask the landlord for any evidence that they will use those grounds.
Jacob Young
It is our position that the types of evidence that can be used do not need to be in the Bill, but as I have already set out, they will be in guidance.
Matthew Pennycook
That is some progress. If we have a commitment from the Minister that we will get detailed guidance that landlords need to submit—
Matthew Pennycook
That is welcome, but I think the concern is still there, because what does the guidance say? We do not know. What proof does it ask for? We have a clear set of evidential requirements in amendment 138.
We feel strongly about the point of protected periods. In amending ground 1, the Government have removed the requirement for prior notice of the use of the ground. If a landlord wants to take back a property for their own use, they must tell the tenant when the tenancy agreement is made that they may wish to engage the provision for prior notice. There is no prior notice under the amended ground 1. Any tenant could find themselves evicted with six months’ notice, and they would have no clue when they agreed the tenancy with the landlord that they could face that scenario. We very much support the legitimate use of these grounds, but it is essential to strengthen the Bill and the guidance that may come forward to prevent and deter abuse.
For that reason, we will press amendments 138, 139 and 143 to a vote. We also support amendment 194, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown. It is completely reasonable for landlords to have to offer the sitting tenant first refusal on purchase of a property. To be frank, I do not really understand what the Minister says about the alternative scenario of a landlord having a buyer in mind who is not the tenant. That does not sound like a particularly fair ground. The tenant is in the property; they should have first refusal at the market price that the landlord asks for. If they cannot meet that price, the landlord can sell to any other buyers.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
My hon. Friend will note that such provisions exist in other areas, where the first right of refusal is given. Surely if this legislation is passed, the landlord will always first have the tenant in mind when looking for a buyer. The scenarios suggested by the Minister would not occur, because the landlord would go to the tenant before other buyers.
Matthew Pennycook
That is a reasonable point. Landlords will adapt to the system. They will have it in mind that they must automatically make an offer to the sitting tenant. If they determine that the market price is more than the tenant can afford, they can go to the second buyer that they have in mind. We are not quibbling about them selling at market rate, obviously, but it is important to help renters on to the home ownership ladder if possible.
Jacob Young
I understand the hon. Member’s point, but consider a landlord who wanted to sell a property to a family member. That is perfectly legitimate. They might want to sell to their child. If there was a duty on the landlord to offer the tenant first refusal, surely they could not do what they wanted with their property. [Interruption.]
Matthew Pennycook
My colleagues behind me are making the case for me. In that scenario, I respectfully say that the landlord could legitimately exercise ground 1 and, within six months, take the property back for that family member. They could then sell it freely. However, evicting a tenant to do so is, we think, questionable, because it is reasonable to give the tenant first refusal. If I have understood the Minister’s point correctly, if I am a landlord and I want to sell to my son, I can take back the property under mandatory ground 1. My son could live in it, and I could then sell it to him at any point. I do not see why a sitting tenant would need to be evicted for that to happen.
Jacob Young
Under the hon. Gentleman’s argument, the landlord would have to charge rent to the family member. Say the landlord wanted to sell to a close friend; they would not be covered by ground 1. There is a difference on a point of principle between the two sides here. We think that landlords should be able to sell their property to whomever they want. The Opposition seem to take a different view.
Matthew Pennycook
We do take a different view, because, as I have said, it is reasonable that landlords should offer first refusal to tenants. I do not know how many landlords out there are desperately planning to sell to a close friend and would not be able to. That scenario might arise, but in the majority of cases, landlords will sell a property on the open market, and they could give tenants first refusal, at the price that they seek. As I said, we support amendment 194, and will press our amendments in this group to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 136, in clause 3, page 3, leave out lines 21 and 22 and insert— “1, 1A, 1B, 2, 2ZA, 2ZB, 6, 6A four months beginning with the date of service of the notice 5, 5A, 5B, 5C, 5D, 7, 9 two months beginning with the date of service of the notice”
This amendment would ensure that the minimum notice period for a number of ‘no fault’ grounds for possession would be four months rather than two.
Clause 3 amends the grounds for possession in schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988 in relation to not only the courts making orders for possession, but notice periods, to which amendment 136 relates. Each existing, revised or new possession ground, with the exception of grounds 7A and 14, has a corresponding minimum notice period after which either a tenant must vacate the property or the landlord is permitted to start court proceedings to regain possession. Each of these minimum notice periods is set out in clause 3(3). I will read them all out for the record, Mr Gray, because it is important that we know precisely which grounds we are talking about.
As the Bill stands, there is a minimum notice period of two months before the landlord can begin court proceedings under grounds 1, 1A—which we have just discussed—1B, 2, 2ZA, 2ZB, 5, 5A, 5B, 5C, 5D, 6, 6A, 7 and 9. There is a four-week notice period for grounds 5E, 5F, 5G, 8, 8A, 10, 11 and 18, and a two-week notice period for grounds 4, 7B, 12, 13, 14ZA, 14A, 15 and 17.
Amendment 136 amends the provisions in question by creating a new minimum notice period of four months that would apply to a number of existing, revised or new possession grounds that can still fairly be categorised as de facto no-fault grounds because they could be used to evict even model tenants who scrupulously adhere to the terms and conditions of their tenancy agreements. The grounds for possession that we believe should have their minimum notice periods increased from two to four months are the new mandatory grounds for possession 1 and 1A for occupation of a property by the landlord or their family and for its sale; ground 1B for sale of a property by a registered provider of social housing; ground 2 for sale by mortgage; grounds 2ZA and 2ZB for when a superior lease ends or when a superior landlord becomes the direct landlord; ground 6 for redevelopment; and ground 6A for when compliance with enforcement action is required. Grounds 5, 5A, 5B, 5C, 5D, 7 and 9 would retain a minimum notice period of two months, as provided for by subsection (3).
While there are legitimate, genuinely held differences of opinion between the Opposition and the Government about how Ministers propose to implement the ending of section 21 evictions, there is broad consensus in the House on the removal of section 21 by means of the Bill. It is obvious why such a consensus exists. As we have discussed, landlords can evict tenants with as little as two months’ notice at any point after their fixed-term tenancy has come to an end, without giving a reason for doing so, or even having such a reason.
As we discussed this morning in discussion on clause 1 stand part, significant numbers of tenants are evicted each year through a section 21 notice. Worryingly, the numbers appear to be rising; the Government’s own figures make it clear that between July and September of this year alone, accelerated procedures numbers for England increased across all actions, with claims up 38%, orders up 32%, warrants up 31% and repossessions up by 29%. No-fault, no-reason evictions are hugely disruptive for tenants; they harm the health, wellbeing and life chances of many, particularly the growing number of young people growing up in the private rented sector. They are also the leading cause of homelessness in England.
Abolishing section 21 is, then, long overdue, and when it is finally enacted it will give private renters much-needed security in their homes and enable and embolden them to assert and enforce their rights more vigorously. However, the abolition of section 21 will not entirely remove the threat of short-notice frequent evictions, which put tenants at risk of homelessness, and the Bill proposes to retain a number of de facto no-fault grounds for possession with, as I explained earlier, minimum notice periods of just two months.
Some would argue, as the Minister may, that two months is more than enough time to find a new private rented property, but we think that such an assumption is highly questionable. There is a wealth of evidence to suggest that a significant proportion of the approximately 11 million private renters in England struggle to do so, particularly in hot rental markets where demand is extremely high, as pointed out in the evidence given by James Prestwich from the Chartered Institute of Housing. For example, research carried out by Shelter suggests that for 34% of renters it took longer than two months to find and agree a new tenancy the last time they moved. Worryingly, that increased to 40% of renters with children and 46% of black renters. That highlights the additional challenges faced by particular tenant cohorts.
Our amendments do not press for a blanket four-month minimum notice period in relation to all grounds for possession. That would be excessive and limit the ability of landlords to quickly regain possession of their properties in legitimate circumstances. For example, if a tenant is found guilty of breaching one of the terms of their tenancy agreement, it is right that, albeit on a discretionary and not mandatory ground, the landlord can recover the property in two weeks. We would not want to extend notice periods in a uniform way in that respect, which would undermine ground 12 or any number of others.
However, we do feel strongly that when it comes to the de facto no-fault grounds that the Bill provides for, the notice period should be increased to better protect tenants against the risk of homelessness, particularly families and those who, for a variety of reasons, will struggle to secure a new home within two months. As Ben Twomey, the chief executive of Generation Rent, put it in our evidence sessions:
“We think there should be better protections”
in this part of the Bill. He continued:
“It should go to four months instead, to give the renter time to make the savings, look around and find somewhere to live.”––[Official Report, Renters (Reform) Public Bill Committee, 14 November 2023; c. 38, Q38.]
The Government maintain that, as we have just discussed, the Bill strikes the right balance between the interests of landlords and tenants. Indeed, the Minister made the point in the previous debate, and this morning, warning us that to seek to upset that delicate balance would be to invite ruin. We do not believe that the Bill as it is currently drafted strikes the right balance between the interests of landlords and tenants. The proposed notice periods are a prime example of where we believe the playing field is still tilted towards the landlord interest, in a way that would cause real problems for tenants. To ensure that the playing field between landlords and tenants is truly levelled, the latter require greater protection when it comes to the notice period for the de facto no-fault possession grounds that are to remain in force as a result of the Bill. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I rise to support the amendment —no surprise there. We have a crisis not only in our private rented sector, but with the burdens that local authorities are having placed on them, with people coming to them at short notice because they are losing their homes. Many Members will know that two months is just not long enough for many local authorities to assist the constituent or, in this case, tenant to find a home in time. They are put into emergency accommodation at great cost to the council and the public purse. As a result of section 21s and the short period people have to find homes, last year 24,000 households were threatened with homelessness and had to resort to their local council. That is a huge number, and our local councils are suffering. The emergency accommodation spending of Hastings Borough Council, just down the road from me, has gone from £500,000 to £5 million this year. How can a council find that amount of money in three years? Almost exclusively, the cause is the ending of private tenancies.
We all think that private tenancies will need to end sometimes. No one thinks they should not when there are legitimate reasons. The Conservative party manifesto said that the Government would end no-fault evictions. It did not say that they would end just section 21s: it said they would end no-fault evictions. Clearly, that has not happened. We all agree that there are some reasons why a no-fault eviction might be needed, but serving those no-fault evictions with the same terms and time limit as section 21 evictions seems to breach the spirit, if not the letter, of not only the governing party’s manifesto but the point that we are meant to be rebalancing and giving time for tenants to find properties.
We could choose any number and say it was suitable, but let us think about the cycle through which people find houses. It will often take a number of weeks just to look for a house. Then someone will have to raise the money to pay for a deposit in advance, which might require one or two pay cheques. The Minister has already dismissed my amendment on rent-free periods, so people will have to raise that amount from the money they are earning at the time, and that may take a number of months. For a lot of private renters, 60% of their salary goes toward rent, so the idea of having to raise a month’s rent in advance in two months is almost impossible.
There is then the need to ensure that contracts are signed and references are done. To go through all that process in two months, someone would effectively need to have found a property on day one of getting the order. Four months is a much more reasonable period for someone to be able to do all that, when there is no fault of their own. It is incumbent on the Minister to at least consider that idea, and if not, to ask what additional protections and support will be given to tenants and local authorities to aid that transition, which is currently not aided.
All that is without me even touching on children and the fact that they will need to move schools. Four months would also mean that a child can make a move between schools within term-time and half-term periods. That allows a parent to say to their child, if they are having to move, “At half-term you will be starting at a new school.” These are important things for raising families, and the cycles are not unrealistic.
Of course, there will always be need for quicker evictions. There will be fault evictions. There will be pre-notice evictions. My Front-Bench team is not proposing to change any of them; I think that that is a reasonable balance for everyone. I urge the Minister to accept the amendment.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
I, too, urge the Minister to accept the amendment. It is common knowledge that London is at the sharp end of the pressures in this respect, and the need for a more flexible approach is pressing.
The Government are missing a recognition that the private rented sector, and moves within it, are not as they were, as we touched on earlier. The profile of renters is now completely different compared with the situation a decade or two ago, so the needs of households need to be accommodated in the management of the sector. There are more families in the sector and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown said, we need to ensure that families with children are given sufficient lead-in time to move their children between schools. For families with two or three children, that can involve finding a way of moving children in primary school and secondary school and between nurseries. These are major logistical tasks.
The Chair
Order. It is also an extremely bad idea to argue with the Chair. You did not make yourself known to me, I did not see you, and saying you did puts you in bad odour, so just don’t do it.
Mike Amesbury
Thank you, Mr Gray. I rise to support the amendment, which is a pragmatic response to the current housing market conditions, which are particularly acute in London and the south-east, for those who are vulnerable and do not have buying power, such as young professionals. My hon. Friend the shadow Minister highlighted a rather startling figure from Shelter: 40% of renters with children wait way beyond the two months currently in the Bill.
Members have also referred to the cost ultimately to the Exchequer, but certainly to local authorities. We have 104,000 people—a record number—living in temporary accommodation, and the cost to local authorities is £1.7 billion. That is another startling figure, and maybe the Chancellor will respond to it tomorrow with changes to the local housing allowance. I think the amendment is pragmatic. It is about focusing on the families and vulnerable tenants most in need in a marketplace that has limited availability. I think local housing allowance covers about 5% nationally—
Mike Amesbury
Of course it is far worse in London and, indeed, other cities. I urge the Minister and the Government to do the to do the right thing with this amendment.
Jacob Young
I thank the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for tabling amendment 136, which seeks to lengthen the notice period that landlords must give for some grounds of possession. The notice period in the Bill balances the needs of both tenants and landlords. We have not reached our decisions without a lot of thought and careful consideration over many years and in collaboration with the sector.
It is important to give tenants sufficient time to find a new home. However, notice periods must also balance that aim with ensuring that landlords can manage their assets. For example, they may need to sell or move into the property, which might also be their long-term family home. Landlords must also be able to comply with enforcement measures or contractual requirements, such as superior leases, in a timely manner. Setting a longer notice period would undermine landlords’ confidence in dealing with such reasonable scenarios. We encourage landlords to work flexibly with their tenants and notify them of their intentions as far in advance as possible, but we also recognise that that is not always possible.
As Members have indicated, we think our approach strikes the right balance, so I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I will not withdraw the amendment; I am going to press it to a vote because, again, I do not think the Government have got the balance right. I do not think that two months’ notice is sufficient for a whole cohort of tenants, and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale is absolutely right. There is a basic issue of fairness here in terms of the profile of the private rented sector, as it now is. We can all look at the minimum notice period in the explanatory notes and think that it seems very reasonable: “Two months. Who could not make two months?” But we all look at that as highly paid professionals who could move in that period of time. Older people, disabled renters, or renters with a family simply cannot do that.
I put the Shelter figure to the Minister again. He may question the figure, but it seems like it comes from a very detailed study. What are the Government saying to the 34% of renters who could not move within that two-month period when they last moved? The Government are effectively saying to those renters, “You’re at risk of homelessness,” and we do not think that is fair. On the de facto no-fault grounds—which, just to be very clear, are mandatory; we are not talking about every ground—the Government should think again.
Jacob Young
The hon. Member refers to fairness, but the situation is not fair for the landlord either. A landlord who wants to move into their property for whatever reason—we do not know the reasons, but it could be a reasonable ground—or sell it would have to wait an additional two months. We are talking about two months’ notice to provide grounds for possession, so in reality it could be much longer than that because it could be two months plus whatever court proceedings come afterwards.
The hon. Member is saying that we should extend the period to four months. On the basis that a typical court hearing would take 22 weeks, as we have heard elsewhere, we are talking about a period of nine months between when a landlord might want to move into their property and when they can actually do so. I do not think that that is fair either. As I say, we believe that we are striking the right balance.
Matthew Pennycook
I say two things to the Minister. First, the minimum notice periods are from the date of service of the notice. I take the point about court reform, but this is at the point of service of the notice, not the point of the possession award; they are the minimum periods that apply. Secondly, what is his answer to the 34%? There is evidence out there from organisations with expertise in this area. What the Minister is saying is that the Government are content to see a third of tenants given a minimum notice period in which they cannot possibly reasonably find a new property.
There is a fairness point and also a cost point, which the Government should, from their own perspective, be more concerned about. The cost of those renters not being able to find properties will be borne by local authorities. As Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up—I think I have his title correct—the Minister will know what is happening with Liverpool City Council. Its spend on temporary accommodation increased by 7,660% by the end of the fiscal year compared to 2019. Several London councils, including my own, are in financial difficulty because of temporary accommodation costs. This is not sustainable. If the Government are going to allow this broad swathe of new mandatory de facto grounds to be in place with a two-month notice period, that situation will persist.
The last thing I would say goes to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown earlier. Lots of tenants served with these notices are going to find somewhere and move out before the date. We are talking about the hard cases where people cannot move out. I think the Government have a tin ear on this—they have a mindset issue when it comes to grappling with what the PRS looks like now. By refusing the amendment, the Government are effectively saying, “That’s their problem.” We think the Government should think again, so we intend to press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Jacob Young
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 3, page 3, line 21, after “2ZB,” insert “4A,”.
This amendment adds the new Ground 4A inserted by Amendment 9 to the table that the Bill inserts into section 8 of the 1988 Act, with the effect that a notice under that section relying on that ground must specify a date no sooner than 2 months after the date of service of the notice.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 9.
Amendment (a) to Government amendment 9, line 16, at end insert—
“(e) the property was exclusively advertised through a specified educational institution, their agents or providers as outlined in Schedule 1 of the 1988 Act.”
This amendment would only allow Ground 4A to be used as a ground for possession when the property was exclusively advertised through an educational institution, rather than in relation to a HMO property which is not exclusively provided to students.
Jacob Young
Government amendments 1 and 9 introduce a new ground for possession to ensure that the annual cycle of student lettings can continue in the new tenancy system. We have spoken to many, including landlords and universities, who are concerned about the potential impact of our reforms on the student market. I thank all those who have engaged with us on this important issue. The amendments address the concerns in a balanced and proportionate way.
As many of us will have experienced, the student housing market works on an annual, cyclical basis. Students typically move in and out of properties over the summer, in line with the academic year. Without the backstop of section 21, we understand that landlords would no longer be able to guarantee that properties would be empty for new groups of students. That would have knock-on implications for students, who could not sign up for properties in advance and know that they had somewhere to live for the start of the academic year. The introduction of this ground will mean that the annual churn of “typical” student lettings is maintained. Landlords letting to full-time students can ensure a property is vacant at the end of the academic year and ready for a new group of student tenants over the summer months.
I would like to reassure Members that we have designed the ground carefully. Our approach will protect this crucial part of the market while balancing the needs of both landlords and students. The ground can be used by landlords in England when a house in multiple occupation is occupied by full-time students at the start of a tenancy and the property is needed for a new group of students for the next academic year. That means that the ground is unlikely to capture students who have children or other caring responsibilities, or who are studying part-time alongside their main job.
The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown is therefore not necessary. It would narrow the scope of the ground significantly. Most properties are advertised on Zoopla or Rightmove rather than through a university, so the amendment would not provide the carve-out that the student market needs. Landlords will be required to give tenants at least two months’ notice in line with the other “landlord circumstance” or “no fault” grounds. I hope the hon. Member will withdraw his amendment to clause 9.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I am sceptical about the need for a special student carve-out. The National Union of Students is sceptical as well, but it did acknowledge that if worded correctly it could provide some relief to support a special dedicated market.
I think the Government’s amendment is too broad: it attacks the market that students might be bidding in rather than specifying student markets. There are three markets for the students to bid in. One is purpose-built student accommodation, which already has an exemption and a ground in the Bill—no problem. The second is the student-only houses in multiple occupation market, which is usually advertised via universities or organisations such as Unipol, and focuses only on students. Then there are the HMOs available for young professionals and young people.
Most of the HMOs on the seafront in my constituency are not occupied by students; they are occupied by young professionals looking to eventually get a house to themselves, but they are sharing. There might be people who share accommodation for cost-saving purposes. The measure gives an exemption to that market if the landlord lets to students only. It sucks away a market that is already overstretched—the HMO market—and pushes it into the student market. Already there is pressure because the student market pays more than the general HMO market. The measure will exacerbate that and make things far worse. I am deeply worried about that unintended consequence.
We could stop that unintended consequence. If a property is only for the student market, of course we recognise that, but it should be advertised only via student letting agencies—at the university or via a registered provider. That is largely done, anyway. Universities often pair up with local letting agents and assign letting agents that are trusted providers. My amendment allows that, but it treats the exemption much more like the purpose-built student accommodation exemption. In the long run, universities should have a duty to provide housing—purpose-built or HMO—via the university for all students who want it. That would relieve a lot of the tensions that we get in communities where people are fighting over HMOs—young professionals versus students.
There are measures via article 4 directives under the planning regulations, but they are blunt tools. What we really need is a duty given to universities to ensure that any student who so wishes can be provided with accommodation. That would be a long-term solution. It would solve the madness in Manchester this year—students having to live in Liverpool because not enough accommodation is provided for them in Manchester. But that will not be solved by the Government’s amendment. In my view, it could be made worse.
Providing that all student accommodation needed to be advertised via the university would also allow the university to have a better appraisal of what accommodation was available for their students. It would allow the university to liaise with landlords. When there are problems in communities with student houses—I do not want to be unfair to students, but they are sometimes known to enjoy a party here or there—the universities would be involved in that process, rather than students just being out in the wild, as it were. Good universities already do that. Most universities already have that process.
My other fear is that the measure will make it harder for students who actively choose to live in mixed households, because landlords will not want mixed households. Students who at the moment want to enter the general HMO market and live in a mixed household will now be discouraged. The landlord will say, “No, even though I am advertising this on the general market, I would quite like to rent to an exclusive student household.” The measure also underestimates the flexibility of the student experience: students will drop out, want to stay or want to go into work.
Finally, the danger of the Government amendment, without my amendment, is that it will embed the very problem with the student market. Anyone whose children have gone to university or who has recently been to university themselves will know that, by January, students already have to decide what accommodation they will have next year. Preserving that function of the market is not a positive thing. Students have not developed deep friendships—they only arrived in October—and often have not actually worked out what course they want to do. If they are on a course that has vocational or work placement elements, they do not know where those placements will be. It is impossible for those students to properly plan. Young people who come through clearing are often scrabbling around; by that point, purpose-built accommodation is already taken, and private rented properties are already snatched up.
We could push back the point at which a landlord would know whether that property was vacant. If the students want to stay, there is no problem: the landlord is still going to get the rent, and for the landlord there is no argument there. But if the landlord knew only a few months beforehand—perhaps a two-month or four-month notice period—then students would be deciding in July or August about what accommodation they would be living in. That would give students who had gone through clearing or were going into work placements much better options in the private rented sector.
I worry that, without my amendment, we are locking in many of the problems of the student market. I would struggle to withdraw my amendment, because I think it improves the Minister’s amendment: it does what he is trying to do, but without the unintended consequences.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the Minister for his explanation, but it lacked detail; I am still not particularly clear on the Government’s rationale for drafting and tabling the amendment as it stands. I will come to the reasons why, but I want first to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown for raising an important issue in relation to student lettings. I fully agree that we need to do much more to improve the student lettings market and drive up professionalism in it.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I should have declared at the beginning that I am a trustee at the University of Bradford Union of Students, which has a board member place on Unipol, the student lettings agency.
Matthew Pennycook
The Committee will have noted that. I have no doubt that lettings services run by universities and student unions have an important and effective part to play in driving up professionalism and improving the functioning of the market.
As we have heard, Government amendments 1 and 9 make provision for new possession ground 4A, which would allow a student HMO to be recovered by a landlord for further occupation by students. On the Opposition Front Bench, we take a slightly different view from my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown: we welcome the fact that the Government have recognised that the student market is distinct in particular ways from the rest of the private rented sector and that its protection requires a bespoke approach of some kind. We appreciate the arguments advanced by some landlords operating in the sector about the fact that much of the student market—not all of it; I will come to that—is cyclical and that landlords need a means of guaranteeing possession each year for a new set of tenants. However, we are equally cognisant of the concerns put forward by bodies and organisations representing students and their interests about the potential implications of treating student renters differently from other private tenants—the precedent that might set and the problems that might arise as a result of specific exemptions for certain types of purpose-built dwelling.
In determining whether the Government have struck the right balance as it relates to this measure, we need to grapple with the fact—my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown referred to this—that defining what constitutes a student dwelling is deeply challenging, given the diversity of individuals engaged in higher education and how varied their educational circumstances can be. There is also the fact that some private dwellings will be shared between students and people in employment, whether because the people working have chosen to remain in the area following completion of study or because it made sense for the student in question to move in with an individual of working age who was already at work when they signed their tenancy agreement.
Paragraph (a) of the proposed new ground 4A makes clear that it may be used for houses in multiple occupation and where each tenant is a student at the beginning of the tenancy. Is the implication of the paragraph that, to make use of the ground, a landlord would have to verify at the point the tenancy was signed that every individual who would occupy the property was in fact a student? If a landlord let a house, for example, to two students and one person working full-time, would they not be able to make use of new ground 4A? If it is the case that landlords cannot use new ground 4A to gain possession of a household of, say, part-time students sharing with full-time workers, can the Minister explain whether the Government have undertaken any assessment of the impact of the new possession ground on the availability of rental housing, particularly in towns and cities with large student populations where, as my hon. Friend said, the supply of student housing is already under enormous pressure? I know that, too, from my own constituency.
A further complication is added into the mix by sub-paragraph (a)(ii), which provides for use of the ground where
“the landlord reasonably believed that the tenant would become a full-time student during the tenancy”.
That strikes us as an incredibly low evidential threshold to have to meet. Can the Minister explain how on earth landlords will be expected to prove that such a belief is legitimate? Who will they need to satisfy, if anyone, that there are reasonable grounds to assume that a non-student tenant will become a student during the lifetime of the tenancy?
We are genuinely concerned that Government amendment 9 as drafted could be abused by unscrupulous landlords following the enactment of chapter 1 of part 1 of the Bill. Relying on paragraph (a)(ii), one could easily imagine landlords evicting groups of, say, young working tenants sharing a property using the justification that they believed they intended to become full-time students before the tenancy agreement expired. We would venture that the courts themselves will struggle to ascertain whether a landlord has proved the new ground by relying on sub-paragraph (ii) and that most evictions under 4A, like other mandatory possession grounds, will probably not even arrive before a judge—the tenants will simply leave, the threat having been made. We would welcome further clarification from the Minister about why sub-paragraph (ii) has been included in the proposed new clause and would like some robust assurances that it cannot be abused to facilitate section 21 no-fault evictions by the back door.
Another complication arising from the wording of the new clause concerns paragraph (c) on lines 11 and 12 of the amendment paper. That states that new ground 4A can be used to gain possession only between 1 June and 30 September in any year. However, as hon. Members with student populations in their constituencies will know, a large number of UK universities now also accommodate a winter intake in January. They do so not only for postgraduate students; it is now also the main secondary intake for some undergraduate courses. Given that the proposed new possession ground is available for use only during June and September, we are concerned it could have the unintended consequence of impacting detrimentally on the availability of other properties for students to let at other times of the year, given that under the proposed new ground there is an inherent incentive for landlords to let only on the primary summer-to-summer cycle.
If it is the Government’s intention to ensure that there is a cyclical availability of student accommodation, we suspect that they may need to think again about how it is achieved for students whose academic year starts and finishes at times other than those specified in the amendment. Moreover, even for those students who finish their courses in the summer, there is a wide degree of variation between undergraduates, who will usually finish earlier; postgraduates, who may be working on research projects until a much later date; or undergraduates undertaking placements.
Jacob Young
Let me address some of the hon. Gentleman’s questions straightaway. On whether a landlord will have to check that the tenants are students, they must do that at the beginning of the tenancy. They can be fined if they try to use these grounds without having notified the students that they are in student accommodation and that the grounds are therefore included.
The hon. Gentleman asked if everyone in a property must be a student. That is the case; if the property is mixed occupancy, the ground will not apply. On his point about reasonable belief, that is specifically in relation to first-year students who have not yet become a student. A landlord can reasonably believe that a student taking out a tenancy is to become one, but until they are a student they are not technically one just yet.
The ground is designed to cover the majority of the market. Were we to make the ground available all year round, it would give much less security and open it up to much greater abuse.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
That is why it is better to swap in my amendment on this point. Rather than working with the universities on the particular cycle they might have in their local area, we are trying to legislate for term times here in Westminster, but it does not work. Will the Minister go away, maybe when the Bill goes to the other place, and rethink how we can have a clause that requires landlords to work with a university to ensure that letting is in line with the relevant local term times and not our attempts to legislate for these things here? I get what the Minister is trying to say.
Jacob Young
I completely take the hon. Gentleman’s point. Obviously, on the back of the conversations we have had today, we will consider these measures further. The ground has been carefully designed in consultation with stakeholders—landlords, universities and so on—to facilitate the annual cycle of short-term student tenancies. That is why we specifically created that gap in the change in the academic year.
Matthew Pennycook
If I have understood the Minister correctly, he has made a commitment to go away and think further about this. As it stands, is there anything in the Bill that would protect students whose courses are not on that summer-to-summer cycle from being evicted through the use of the new mandatory ground? We do not think there is, which is why we think the Government need to think again. Is anything forthcoming or in the Bill that is designed to protect against the problem I spoke about—postgrads or others who go beyond the summer cycle? It may be a minority of students, but it is still a significant minority.
Jacob Young
I undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman with the assurances he seeks. We have designed the ground carefully with landlords, because we have listened to their concerns, particularly about the student market. None of us in Committee today would want to end up in a situation where, on Royal Assent, we were not able to facilitate student accommodation.
Mike Amesbury
I want to probe the Minister a little more on the point that the landlord “reasonably believed” someone could be a student. Some time ago I was a councillor in Fallowfield, which had large areas of student accommodation. Some of those were mixed tenancies, but people would have made an assumption—would have reasonably believed—that all the people who lived there were students. Is that covered? Is the clause tight enough?
Jacob Young
As I said, everyone in a property would have to be a student. It would be an obligation on the landlord to ensure that they are students or that he or she reasonably believes that they are students. We will follow the Bill with statutory instruments plus guidance; we can make it clear in the guidance what we expect. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown not to press his amendment.
Mike Amesbury
It is about evidencing that. It would be in the guidance, but what kind of evidence would the landlord need to provide?
Jacob Young
I am not in a position to outline that today. I have made it clear that, in terms of a landlord reasonably expecting someone to become a student, that would hinge on them starting term in the very near future. I think that that is clear, but we will set that out further in guidance. For those reasons and others, I ask the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown not to press his amendment.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
The Minister has given a good rationale for his amendment. Paragraph (d) requires the landlord, in the next letting cycle, to be letting out to exclusively students or those he believes to be students. How will we assess whether the property has been let out to students exclusively? That is the only point of the clause. Will the property portal be an opportunity to record information about whether the house is a student let, so that we can be clear when the tenancy is signed and when the next tenancy is released that it is a reserved student property?
Jacob Young
It is likely that a new contract would have to be signed with the new tenants, who would be students, for this to be used. It would be unusual for a judge to think that, “I thought all of these people were suddenly going to become students,” would be a reasonable argument to use this ground. I do not think the hon. Gentleman’s points have merit, and I ask him not to press his amendment to a vote.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I am not inclined to press my amendment, because the Minister has given assurances that he will go away and rethink the clause. I am still not happy about the clause, and we will see what we do on the substantive issue, but there are problems with paragraph (d). The provisions do not work with the universities; they set things in Westminster, rather than saying that the property should be protected because it has been let via an approved university letting agent or the university itself. That seems like a solution the Minister could grab. It would solve his term dates problem, his “Is it going to be let to students?” problem and his “Is it being let to students?” problem. In fact, every single question we have would be solved by my amendment. The Minister has said, and I will take it in good faith, that he will go away, look at this and see how things could be amended, and I will push him on Third Reading on what ideas he has come up with.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 137, in clause 3, page 3, line 32, at end insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a review of the changes to grounds for possession made under this Act within two years of the date of Royal Assent.”
This amendment would require the Government to publish a review of the impact of the amended grounds for possession within two years of the Act coming into force.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 54—Review of changes to grounds for possession—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within two years of the date of Royal Assent to this Act, conduct and lay before Parliament a review of the grounds for possession in Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988, as amended by this Act.
(2) The review must include—
(a) an assessment of the effectiveness of the new or amended grounds for possession set out in Schedule 1 of this Act in securing evictions from properties;
(b) an assessment of the impact on the security of tenure of tenants as a result of the use of the new or amended grounds for possession set out in Schedule 1 of this Act;
(c) a report on the use of enforcement action in relation to the new or amended grounds for possession set out in Schedule 1 of this Act;
(d) an assessment of the effectiveness of the grounds for possession listed in Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988 in securing evictions from properties that remain unamended by Schedule 1 of this Act.
(3) The review under subsection (1) must make such recommendations as, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, are necessary in the light of the findings of the review.”
This new clause would require the Government to publish a review of the impact of the amended grounds for possession within two years of the Act coming into force.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 3, as we have discussed, amends the grounds for possession in schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988. Once section 21 has finally been removed from that Act through the provisions in clause 2 and the commencement dates in clause 67, the only means by which a landlord will be able to regain possession of a property by evicting a tenant will be by securing a court judgment under the revised section 8 grounds set out in schedule 2 to the 1988 Act, whether they be mandatory or discretionary. We have already debated concerns relating to several of those grounds, and we will debate more in due course when we get to schedule 1. However, we believe it is important to also take a view on the proposed replacement possession regime as a whole, given that it is the most comprehensive reform of the grounds in that regime in the 35 years since the 1988 Act came into force.
Labour recognises, and has repeatedly said since the White Paper was published, that following the abolition of section 21 no-fault evictions, landlords will need recourse to robust and effective grounds for possession in circumstances where there are valid reasons for taking a property back, such as flagrant antisocial or criminal behaviour. However, we have also made it clear that the Bill must ensure that such grounds cannot be abused to unfairly evict tenants and that they will be tight enough to minimise fraudulent use of the kind we have seen in Scotland in the wake of the major private renting reforms introduced there in 2017.
The revised set of section 8 possession grounds must reflect the fact that evictions, which are inherently disruptive and often incredibly damaging to tenants’ lives, should be only ever a measure of last resort where no alternative course of action exists. The grounds must be proportionate, secure against abuse from landlords seeking to carry out unfair or retaliatory evictions, and designed effectively so that properties are recovered only when a tenant is genuinely at fault, and they must not cause tenants undue hardship.
Amendment 137 and new clause 54 would require the Government to publish a review of the impact of the amended grounds for possession regime within two years of the Act coming into force. With that requirement, whether individual grounds for possession are further amended, as we hope, or the Government resist our efforts and the grounds remain as drafted, we will at least be able to judge the efficacy and impact of the new arrangements both for landlords seeking to recover their properties when a tenant is genuinely at fault and for tenants who are not at fault but who may suffer as a result of flaws in the regime. We think the amendment is entirely reasonable, and I am interested to hear how the Minister will, no doubt, resist it.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I rise to support the amendment. The Minister has already indicated that there is work still to do and that he will go away and see how this will work in practice. Clearly, some of these issues will come out when the Bill receives Royal Assent.
These are sensible measures with which nobody—landlords or tenants—could really disagree. We can no longer have a set of grounds that have been stuck in time for 30 years, and Bills that only add things on from time to time, without stepping back and looking at the changes that have occurred, whether those relate to students—the Minister is pushing for the measures on students to be included in the Bill, rather than in regulations—or any of the other clauses. Consider antisocial behaviour in particular, and the concern that many campaign groups have expressed around potential domestic violence falling foul of the new “likely” or “able to” provisions.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
The Minister may disagree. That is fine: he will get his way, and we will pass his wording, but there should then be an assurance that, in a few years’ time, there will be a review of the legislation. If the Minister is right, we will applaud him—well, we cannot applaud in the House of Commons, but we will metaphorically cheer him in the House and say that he did such a fantastic job with his civil servants and the Department that the legislation is watertight. Alternatively, we will say that there are some small loopholes that need changing or that the world has changed. I do not think that that is unreasonable.
Personally, I think these sorts of provisions should be in almost all Bills we pass, but they are particularly important in this Bill, because of the dynamic nature of the market and the wholescale reforms we are making. Nobody knows what effects this will have on the courts. Nobody knows quite what effects it will have on tenants. Opposition Members are all talking about unintended consequences, which is why our proposals are so important.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I should have referred this morning to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I apologise for that oversight and refer Members to it now.
I rise to support the amendment and the new clause. We have had a lot of discussion, in good faith, about the unintended consequences for the private rented sector and the impact on tenants, but much of this has been guesswork. It would be extremely sensible to have a requirement to look at this a couple of years down the line and to ask, “Have we driven landlords from the market unintentionally? Have we put tenants in an insecure position unintentionally?” It would be remiss of any Government to fail to assess the impact of their legislation.
Ms Buck
I really do hope that the Minister will concede on this point. One of the striking themes that emerged in the evidence sessions was just how little we know about what is happening in the private rented sector. It is to the shame of the Government, and probably even the previous Government, that this massive transformation in the life of the country and throughout the housing stock, which is affecting millions of people, has happened without us having accurate data to assess the impact. We are struggling to catch up in so many respects.
We will no doubt be talking more about the changing grounds for possession in the context of antisocial behaviour and rent arrears but as has been reinforced—we just need to keep saying this—the people in the private rented sector who we have the most concern about are those whose equivalents were not in the private rented sector 20 or 25 years ago. Their patterns of need, the patterns of demand they place on the sector and the risks they have to face are also quite different.
Families with children, families experiencing domestic violence and those with all kinds of vulnerabilities, including serious mental health problems, addictions or learning disabilities, would for the most part not have been in this situation before, but they are now having to be accommodated. It is not only that they are in the private rented sector in a way that they were not before, and are at risk, but that they are disproportionately impacted by harsh decisions that cause them to lose their homes. They face a higher risk and are worst affected.
I do not know whether all Members have experience of this, but any Member of Parliament with a larger private rented sector will be experiencing the consequences and will have traumatised families coming to them with problems who will perhaps be facing eviction and be in distress. That is often for completely trivial reasons or because of circumstances that arise simply out of misunderstandings or the failure of the bureaucratic and social security systems to catch up.
It is the most basic and sensible thing to do to ensure that there is a proper data review and that we make up for the fact that we have spent several decades now trying to understand a system about which we have too little information. The Minister has a chance to put that right.
Jacob Young
I thank the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich and other hon. Members who have spoken on amendment 137 and new clause 54. We all agree that it is vital that the Government keep such an important set of policies under review. We must ensure that the grounds for possession are providing adequate security to tenants and functioning effectively for landlords, too.
We are committed to robustly monitoring and evaluating the private rented sector reform programme. Our impact assessment for the Bill, which has been published online, sets out our plans for evaluation. That builds on the Department’s existing long-term housing sector monitoring work, and we will conduct our process, impact, and value for money evaluation in line with the Department’s recently published evaluation strategy. Setting an arbitrary deadline in law for that work might detract from the quality of evaluation and prevent us conducting as robust an assessment as possible. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment 137.
Mike Amesbury
Why could this not be added to the current evaluation plans? Surely good law is about assessment of the planning, implementation and then review. Given the nature of the current marketplace and how it can shape things, particularly for those who are out of sight or are vulnerable in the current population, surely that two-year review would be good law.
Jacob Young
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point, but it is not usual for us to include such a review on the face of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the Minister for his response, but it is a little disappointing, and I want briefly to say why.
The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North made is absolutely right. Unlike in other sectors, we really have no idea of the composition of the private rented sector. That is one reason why the portal is so important: it is such a potential game changer that we can start to get that information, but we do not have it at the moment, so we do not know what the impact of these reforms will be, nor do we know the impact of the changes to the grounds for possession.
I want to bring it home to the Committee that the changes to the grounds for possession are not small. We have new grounds that could potentially work in ways that the Government do not intend; we also have significantly amended grounds. We really need a more formalised review than the Department’s ongoing review process that the Minister has set out.
I urge the Minister to think about that point. If the two years set out in amendment 137 is the wrong deadline or, as he sees it, an arbitrary deadline, we would welcome the Government coming forward with some more formalised means of reviewing the impact not only on tenants, who might find themselves at the sharp end of abuse on some of the grounds, but on landlords, for whom the new grounds simply may not work in the way the Government want. I will not press the amendment to a vote, but I encourage the Government to think about whether we can have something beyond the usual departmental processes. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
Changes to grounds for possession
Amendment proposed: 143, in schedule 1, page 65, line 10, leave out “6 months” and insert “2 years”.—(Matthew Pennycook.)
Amendments 143 and 144 would prohibit evictions under grounds 1 and 1A within two years of the beginning of a tenancy.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Jacob Young
I beg to move amendment 6, in schedule 1, page 66, line 28, after “sell” insert
“a freehold or leasehold interest in”.
This amendment makes it clear that the ground of possession for when a landlord is selling the dwelling-house after a rent-to-buy agreement (Ground 1B) is available where the landlord’s interest is a leasehold one as well as where the landlord holds the freehold of the dwelling-house.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 7.
Amendment 147, in schedule 1, page 66, line 29, after “dwelling-house” insert
“or to offer it to another tenant”.
This amendment would allow private registered providers of social housing to use new ground for possession 1B to offer properties to another tenant.
Jacob Young
Government amendments 6 and 7 will apply to ground 1B, which ensures that private registered providers of social housing can gain possession if they want to sell, dispose of a lease on or grant a lease on a rent-to-buy property, having first given the sitting tenant the opportunity to buy it. Many private registered providers will sell their rent-to-buy homes to the existing tenants on shared ownership terms, but where they do not, they will be able to sell the home to another buyer on the same terms as those on which they had intended to sell to the sitting tenant. The amendments are technical changes to ensure that ground 1B works as intended; they will simply ensure that there is no ambiguity about what selling means. They will support the operation of rent to buy.
I thank the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for tabling amendment 147, which would expand ground 1B. As I have set out, the Bill already takes steps to allow rent to buy to continue to operate in the new system. We are aware that stakeholders are concerned about the issue of providers selling to a different tenant from the sitting one; I will carefully consider that issue further.
I commend Government amendments 6 and 7 to the Committee, and I ask the hon. Gentleman kindly not to press his amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I rise to speak to amendment 147, which stands in my name and the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Weaver Vale, for North Tyneside and for Brighton, Kemptown.
As we have discussed, schedule 1 specifies the reasons that landlords will be able to seek possession once the new tenancy system has come into force. As the Minister has explained, paragraph 4 of schedule 1 provides for a new mandatory ground 1B, which will require a court to award possession when private registered providers of social housing are selling a property under a rent-to-buy or London living rent arrangement. Social landlords will be able to use the new ground only where the defined period stated in the rent-to-buy agreement has expired, and to do so they will have to have complied with any terms in the relevant agreement that require them to offer the sitting tenant the opportunity to purchase the property.
The Bill is concerned primarily with the private rented sector, but it has implications for social housing providers in a number of different areas. New mandatory ground 1B relates to one of those, namely affordable products, offered by registered providers, that are designed to enable tenants to use the savings accrued by sub-market rents to save up for a deposit and ultimately purchase the property at a price no more than market value before it is offered for general sale. New ground 1B will ensure that rent-to-buy schemes, including London living rent, will remain viable in the new tenancy system by providing a mechanism for possession to be gained to sell the property at the end of the scheme in line with the terms of agreement.
Although the new ground is absolutely necessary, the proposed drafting would prevent it from being used when a rent-to-buy property is not being sold but when a new tenant is moving into it. A hypothetical example was given by the chief executive of the National Housing Federation, Kate Henderson, in Tuesday’s evidence session:
“you have somebody who is in a rent-to-buy property, has been there for five years and has decided that they do not want to buy it or they cannot buy it; we would like the ground available so that that property could be given to another tenant who would like to use the property as it was intended and designed to be used—as a rent to buy.”––[Official Report, Renters (Reform) Public Bill Committee, 14 November 2023; c. 52, Q63.]
Jacob Young
The points that the hon. Gentleman raises are fairly technical in nature, so I will endeavour to write to him as soon as possible; I will copy in members of the Committee. As I have already outlined, I will consider his amendment 147 carefully in the further steps of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
I think that that is about as positive a response as will come, so I look forward to what may be forthcoming from the Government.
Amendment 6 agreed to.
Amendment made: 7, in schedule 1, page 66, line 29, after “dwelling-house” insert
“or to grant a lease of the dwelling-house for a term certain of more than 21 years which is not terminable before the end of that term by notice given by or to the landlord”.—(Jacob Young.)
This amendment makes the ground of possession for when a landlord is selling the dwelling-house after a rent-to-buy agreement (Ground 1B) also available to a landlord who is granting a lease of over 21 years.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 188, in schedule 1, page 67, line 23, after “terminate that tenancy”, insert
“(including any tenancy at will or other tenancy arising on expiry of a fixed-term lease)”.
This amendment would extend Ground 2ZA to apply in a situation where a tenancy at will may arise.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 189, in schedule 1, page 67, line 40, at end insert—
“(c) where the intermediate landlord serves notice under this Ground, the intermediate landlord shall be deemed to continue to hold sufficient interest in the dwelling-house to maintain a continuing right to possession until conclusion of any possession proceedings.”
This amendment would ensure that an intermediate landlord retains possession of the property and remains as the landlord of the occupying tenant until the conclusion of possession proceedings.
Matthew Pennycook
In her evidence to the Committee last week, in addition to the request that she made on behalf of housing associations in respect of new ground 1B, the NHF chief executive Kate Henderson also made the case for greater clarity in the Bill on new mandatory ground 2ZA. As is set out in the explanatory notes accompanying the Bill, new ground 2ZA will require a court to award possession when a social or other specified intermediate landlord
“has a superior lease and that superior lease is coming to an end”,
thus enabling them to comply with the terms of the superior lease to which they were subject. The clarification for which Ms Henderson argued related to if new ground 2ZA could be used on a tenancy at will—in other words, a tenancy that arises when a tenant occupies a property with landlord consent indefinitely on the basis that either party can end the arrangement by giving immediate notice at any time.
Amendment 188 would ensure that new ground 2ZA would apply in a situation in which a tenancy at will may arise. That is particularly important for social landlords who use superior and intermediate leases to provide specialist supported accommodation.
Amendment 189 would ensure that social or specified intermediate landlords obtain possession of a property when serving notice under the ground. That would see those landlords remain the landlord of the occupational tenant until the conclusion of possession proceedings, rather than running the risk of the superior landlord becoming the landlord for the occupational tenant. We believe that these are both common-sense amendments, and we hope that the Government will accept them either today or at some future point.
Jacob Young
I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling amendments 188 and 189, which seek to amend new ground 2ZA. I know he said they were a concern to the National Housing Federation. We have had similar conversations with the federation. The amendments would change the ground so that it would continue to apply where the superior lease should have ended but is carrying on in some capacity, either as a tenancy at will or in another form. The ground is already drafted to cover those circumstances, so the amendments are unnecessary.
The amendments would also seek to make a much broader change that would allow the intermediate landlord to retain an interest in the property after the superior lease has come to an end. That would be where the intermediate landlord has commenced possession proceedings, presumably to enable them to conclude them. It is already the case that superior leases can make contractual provision for exactly that scenario, and the Bill does not interfere with that. Where there is not contractual provision in the superior lease, ground 2ZB in the Bill allows a superior landlord to continue the same possession proceedings. That will ensure that possession proceedings can continue.
I therefore ask the hon. Member kindly to withdraw his amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
Those were two very helpful explanations of why these amendments are necessary. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Jacob Young
I beg to move amendment 8, in schedule 1, page 68, line 25, at end insert—
“(d) after that unnumbered paragraph insert ‘and—
(c) if the tenancy arose by succession as mentioned in section 39(5), notice was given to the previous tenant under Case 14 of Schedule 15 to the Rent Act 1977, and
(d) the tenancy is not an assured agricultural occupancy in respect of which the agricultural worker condition is fulfilled by virtue of paragraph 3 of Schedule 3.’”
This amendment to the ground of possession for former student accommodation requires notice to have been given under the equivalent Case in the Rent Act 1977, where the assured tenancy succeeded a tenancy under the 1977 Act, and makes an exception for certain assured agricultural occupancies which arose by succession.
Jacob Young
Under the new system, landlords will be required to notify their tenant, through the new mandatory written statement of terms, where they wish to regain possession through the use of what are called “prior notice” grounds. Government amendments 8 and 10 make consequential changes to the Housing Act 1988 to reflect the new “prior notice” requirements. This will preserve the enhanced security of tenure afforded to assured tenancies that have succeeded tenancies under the Rent Act 1977 and assured agricultural occupancies.
Government amendment 60 will make further consequential changes to the Housing Act 1988 to reflect new “prior notice” requirements. These requirements under the new system mean landlords will need to notify their tenant through the new mandatory written statement of terms, where they wish to regain possession through the use of what are called “prior notice” grounds.
I commend the amendments to the Committee.
Amendment 8 agreed to.
Amendments made: 9, in schedule 1, page 68, line 25, at end insert—
“New ground for possession of student HMO for occupation by students
9A After Ground 4 insert—
‘Ground 4A
The dwelling-house is an HMO and—
(a) at the beginning of the tenancy, as regards each tenant either—
(i) the tenant was a full-time student, or
(ii) the landlord reasonably believed that the tenant would become a full-time student during the tenancy,
(b) the tenants are joint tenants,
(c) the date specified in the notice under section 8 is a date between 1 June and 30 September in any year, and
(d) the landlord seeking possession intends, on the next occasion on which the dwelling-house is let, to let it to people who are full-time students or who the landlord reasonably believes will become full-time students during the tenancy.
In this ground, “full-time student” means a person receiving education provided by means of a full-time course—
(a) of any description mentioned in Schedule 6 to the Education Reform Act 1988 provided by an institution in England or Wales;
(b) of any description mentioned in section 38(2) of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992 provided by an institution in Scotland;
(c) of any description mentioned in Schedule 1 to the Further Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 (S.I. 1997/1772 (N.I. 15)) provided by an institution in Northern Ireland.’”
This amendment inserts a new ground of possession to allow a landlord to recover possession of a house of multiple occupation let to full-time students at the end of the academic year, in order to let it to students again.
Amendment 10, in schedule 1, page 68, line 27, at end insert—
“(b) after paragraph (b) insert—
‘(c) if the tenancy arose by succession as mentioned in section 39(5), notice was given to the previous tenant under Case 15 of Schedule 15 to the Rent Act 1977, and
(d) the tenancy is not an assured agricultural occupancy in respect of which the agricultural worker condition is fulfilled by virtue of paragraph 3 of Schedule 3.’”—(Jacob Young.)
This amendment to the ground for possession for a residence for a minister of religion (Ground 5) requires prior notice to have been given if the tenancy arose by succession after a statutory tenancy, and excepts certain agricultural occupancies from the ground.
Jacob Young
I beg to move amendment 11, in schedule 1, page 71, line 35, leave out from “authority” to end of line 36 and insert
“means a district council, a county council in England for an area for which there is no district council, a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London or the Council of the Isles of Scilly.”
This amendment makes it clear that the reference to a local housing authority in new Ground 5G in Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988 does not cover Welsh county councils and county borough councils.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 50, 61, 66, 69, 79 and 107.
Jacob Young
These amendments will make technical changes to remove separate definitions of “local housing authority” and create a single definition to be used throughout the Bill, to ensure alignment and greater simplification as far as possible. For example, Government amendment 11 excludes Welsh local authorities and includes county councils in England where there is no district council, in new possession ground 5G. I commend the amendments to the Committee.
Matthew Pennycook
I will be very brief. The Minister and I discussed this subject outside the Committee earlier. As he knows, the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 has created a new kind of authority for England: combined county authorities. However, CCAs are not referred to in these amendments, which are otherwise completely uncontroversial and whose inclusion we welcome. I just wonder whether the Minister could give us a reason, on the record, for their omission. Is it because a county council cannot ordinarily be a local housing authority, or is there another reason?
Jacob Young
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to clarify. A combined county authority can exercise the functions of a district council, which will be a local housing authority, if the regulations made under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act provide for the conferral of those functions on a case-by-case basis. As a result, the Government do not believe that there is any need to include combined county authorities in the general definition of a local housing authority at present.
Amendment 11 agreed to.
Jacob Young
I beg to move amendment 12, in schedule 1, page 71, line 40, for “A relevant landlord” substitute
“The landlord seeking possession is mentioned in the first column in a row of the table in this ground, the tenancy is mentioned in the second column of that row, and a person mentioned in the third column of that row”.
This amendment, together with Amendment 14, allows certain social landlords to rely on Ground 6 to get possession of a property let under an assured tenancy if they intend to carry out building works.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 148, in schedule 1, page 72, line 3, leave out “6 months” and insert “2 years”.
This amendment would ensure that no tenant could be evicted on grounds of redevelopment within two years of the beginning of a tenancy.
Government amendments 13 to 15.
Jacob Young
Government amendments 12 to 15 expand the circumstances in which private registered providers of social housing can use the redevelopment ground for possession, known as ground 6. Private registered providers let out property that they know they will substantially redevelop or demolish through an assured shorthold tenancy. That allows them the use of section 21, as they are prohibited from using the existing redevelopment possession ground in almost all circumstances. The amendments widen the definition of “relevant landlord” to include private registered providers, so that they can use the ground for redevelopment in future. However, they will be able to use it only for tenancies that were not granted pursuant to a local authority nomination; that will ensure that tenants whose tenancy was granted pursuant to a local authority nomination retain their long-term social tenancy. The landlords will also be required to provide notice to the tenant before the tenancy begins, or on the day it begins, that they intend to use the redevelopment ground because they are planning to redevelop the property. That will ensure that tenants are fully informed about landlords’ intentions.
The Government believe that it is essential that property earmarked for future redevelopment is still available to live in. The amendments will enable social landlords to make the best possible use of housing stock, and prevent properties that could provide a home needlessly standing empty.
I thank the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for tabling his amendment 148, on ground 6. If there was a longer period before landlords could use the ground, there would be a risk of landlords not making their properties available for rent, which could reduce the supply of much-needed homes. Landlords also need the flexibility that is a key benefit of periodic tenancies. Our proposals strike the right balance. Although the vast majority of improvement works can take place with a tenant in situ, not allowing landlords to use the ground for two years may prevent them from ensuring that a property is maintained to the required standard. I therefore ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I rise to speak to amendment 148 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale. Paragraph 18 of schedule 1 amends ground 6 in schedule 2 to the 1988 Act. As the Minister has set out, the revised ground, which remains mandatory, would require a court to award possession if a relevant landlord wishes to undertake substantial redevelopment of a property, or a part of a building in which the property is located. The landlord must demonstrate that the changes cannot be accomplished with the tenant living there.
Paragraph 18(3) of schedule 1 inserts proposed new paragraph (aa) into ground 6 in schedule 2 to the 1988 Act. New paragraph (aa) specifies that the ground cannot be used unless the landlord was authorised to acquire the property by a compulsory purchase order, or the tenancy had existed for at least six months at the date specified in the notice. The circumstances in which the amended ground is likely to be used are quite limited. However, we believe, as in the case of other mandatory no-fault grounds, that tenants deserve more security than is proposed.
I go back to a point that we have made several times today. The impact on tenants of frequent, short-notice, unexpected moves cannot be over-stated. Such instability takes a mental and physical toll. It prevents tenants from putting down roots in communities; puts them under financial strain, given the high cost of moving, which was mentioned earlier; and prevents them from saving for a deposit to buy their own home. For the millions of families with children now living in the private rented sector, it has a direct and tangible negative impact, including on children’s education as a result of constant school moves.
It is not right that a tenant should continue to be exposed to the risk of a de facto no-fault eviction only six months after starting a tenancy. Any landlord who wishes to undertake substantial redevelopment—it must be substantial—that cannot be accomplished with the tenant in situ should plan for it over the long term. We therefore think it is reasonable to extend the protected period for ground 6 from six months to two years, and amendment 148 would do that.
I finish by tackling head-on the argument that the Minister continues to use: that our changes create a risk that landlords will not use their properties, which would impact supply. What is the evidence for that risk? The Government keep using the defence that landlords will exit the sector. Of course, if they exit the sector, the property is not then used for nothing; it is either sold or taken back into local authority ownership. What evidence do the Government have that measures that we propose, including this amendment, would cause landlords not to use their properties, and would therefore further exacerbate supply problems in the sector?
Jacob Young
On the hon. Gentleman’s questions around security, tenants will have much more security under the new system; under it, landlords will always need a reason to evict a tenant, and must be prepared to evidence that reason in court. That is unlike what happens under section 21. He referred to my comments about properties sitting empty before redevelopment. Obviously, a landlord who was looking to redevelop a property in the near future, but was not yet able to, would not be minded to put a tenant in there unless they had reasonable means of taking back control of that property.
Matthew Pennycook
That scenario raises an interesting question that takes us back to the debate we had on ground 1. As the Minister has just argued, landlords who wish to substantially redevelop their property probably have some prior awareness of the likelihood that they will do that. If he will not accept our amendment, will he at least consider having some form of prior notice mechanism, as there used to be for ground 1 before the Government amended it, so that tenants signing up to a tenancy at least have some indication, when signing their agreement, that a landlord may seek to use this ground in the future? Then, at least, the tenant would enter the agreement fully aware that they may be evicted, with six months’ notice, on that ground.
Jacob Young
The challenge in going down the route of prior notice is that there is a unique circumstance in which prior notice might be used. If we were to apply prior notice across all types of tenancies, it could be argued that it would be less obvious to tenants that they were in a unique circumstance in which prior notice was relevant. I therefore do not accept the arguments on prior notice. “Landlord seeking possession Tenancy Landlord intending to redevelop a relevant social landlord a tenancy of a dwelling-house that was granted pursuant to a nomination as mentioned in section 159(2)(c) of the Housing Act 1996 a superior landlord a relevant social landlord a tenancy of the dwelling-house that was not granted pursuant to a nomination as mentioned in section 159(2)(c) of the Housing Act 1996 (a) the landlord who is seeking possession (b) a superior landlord the unit-holder of a commonhold unit relation to which a commonhold association exercises functions a tenancy of a dwelling-house which is contained in or comprises the commonhold unit (a) the landlord who is seeking possession (b) the commonhold association any landlord other than a relevant social landlord or a unit-holder of a commonhold unit in relation to which a commonhold association exercises functions any tenancy the landlord who is seeking possession”
Amendment 12 agreed to.
Amendments made: 13, in schedule 1, page 72, line 10, at end insert—
“(ab) if the landlord seeking possession is a relevant social landlord and is the person intending to carry out the work, the landlord gave the tenant, before the beginning of the tenancy or on the day on which it began, a written statement of the landlord’s wish to be able to recover possession on the basis of an intention to carry out work mentioned in this ground, and”.
This amendment provides that a “relevant social landlord” as defined in Amendment 15 may only regain possession on the basis of their intention to carry out redevelopment work if they have given a statement to the tenant of their wish to do so before the beginning of the tenancy or on the day on which it began.
Amendment 14, in schedule 1, page 72, line 14, for lines 14 to 33 substitute—
Table
This amendment, together with Amendment 12, allows certain social landlords to rely on Ground 6 to get possession of a property let under an assured tenancy if they intend to carry out building works, and allows a commonhold unit-holder who has let their unit under an assured tenancy to regain possession if the commonhold association is planning works.
Amendment 15, in schedule 1, page 72, line 37, at end insert—
“‘relevant social landlord’ means—
(a) a non-profit registered provider of social housing,
(b) a body registered as a social landlord in the register maintained under section 1 of the Housing Act 1996,
(c) a body registered as a social landlord in the register kept under section 20(1) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2010,
(d) a housing trust, within the meaning of the Housing Associations Act 1985, which is a charity, or
(e) where the dwelling-house is social housing within the meaning of Part 2 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, a profit-making registered provider of social housing.”
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 12 and 14 and inserts a definition of “relevant social landlord” into Ground 6 (possession because of redevelopment works).
Amendment 16, in schedule 1, page 74, line 1, at beginning insert “the”.—(Jacob Young.)
This small drafting amendment makes it clearer that the definition of “the local housing authority” in section 261 of the Housing Act 2004 applies for the purposes of the new Ground 6A in Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 152, in schedule 1, page 74, leave out line 7.
This amendment would retain the existing 12-month period within which the landlord can initiate proceedings on this ground for possession.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 151, in schedule 1, page 74, line 8, at end insert—
“(c) at the end of the last unnumbered paragraph insert—
‘This ground applies only where the landlord is a private registered provider of social housing.’”
This amendment would limit the use of Ground 7 of Schedule 2 of the 1988 Act to social rented housing.
Matthew Pennycook
Paragraph 20 of schedule 1 amends ground 7 in schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988. Ground 7 requires a court to award possession if a tenancy has been passed to someone by will or intestacy after the death of the previous tenant. The landlord has 12 months in which to initiate proceedings using this ground, or 12 months from the point when the landlord learns of the tenant’s death, if the court agrees. The Government propose amending the ground to give landlords 24, rather than 12, months to initiate proceedings.
There are two issues here. The first is whether ground 7, even in its current form, is reasonable, and we are not convinced that it is any more. Why should a private tenant who is complying fully with all the terms and conditions in the tenancy agreement be put at risk of eviction purely because of the death of someone they live with? As the UK Commission on Bereavement has detailed, in the aftermath of a bereavement, renters face not only a significant and immediate loss of income in many cases, but additional costs; they have to prepare funerals and memorials for loved ones, and so on.
In those uniquely distressing circumstances, the threat of eviction should not hang over a tenant for up to a year, as it presently does. Nor should landlords, in our view, be able to use this ground for reasons that the Bill seeks to prohibit—for example, to avoid letting their property to a bereaved family who might find themselves reliant on universal credit, tax credits or housing benefit as a result of the family member’s death. The UK Commission on Bereavement found evidence of that in the sector. The situation is different when it comes to social rented housing, given that stock is much reduced and there is tight rationing; that might require a council or housing association to regain possession of an under-occupied property, but we do not think the same circumstances apply to the private rented sector. Amendment 151 would limit the use of ground 7 to social rented housing, thereby abolishing its use in the private rented sector.
The second issue relates to the change to ground 7 that the Government propose. Assuming that the Minister resists our amendment 151, as I fully expect him to, we still hope that the Government will reconsider extending the period in which a landlord can initiate proceedings on this ground from 12 to 24 months. We recognise that it can often take some time to investigate, and to find evidence confirming whether a person left behind in a property after a tenant’s death is a successor or inherits the tenancy. As a point of principle, however, we do not believe that private tenants who lived with someone who died should face the risk of eviction with just two months’ notice for up to two years after their loss. In fact, I would go so far as to argue that seeking to double the period in which a bereaved tenant has to live with such a risk hanging over their head strikes us as a particularly callous decision. If the Government are adamant that ground 7 needs to remain in force, they should at least retain the existing 12-month timescale for applying for possession on that ground. Amendment 152 would achieve that, and I hope that the Minister will give it serious consideration.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I rise to support amendment 152, and particularly its spirit. I could not agree more that if a tenant is in good standing, paying their rent and not breaching any other clauses of the contract, why should they be kicked out because the named person on the tenancy has died? There are also implications for HMOs if a joint tenant dies, or where the tenancy has been passed on via will or intestacy. Where it is passed on, that will almost always be to children or partners. Very often, a lease will be in the name of only one of the family members—maybe the breadwinning family member, who will have gone through all the financial checks.
A landlord will almost invariably know that they are renting out to a group of people, but for legal and financial reasons, one name will be on that tenancy. It does not seem right that those other people would, over such a long period, possibly face eviction. My preference is for the period to last two or three months after the landlord finds out about the death, but 12 months seems a reasonable compromise that us sceptics could live with, because that is the law at the moment. I have not heard any reasons—I look forward to hearing some from the Minister—why the period needs to be extended, or why the Government think hanging the sword of Damocles over a grieving family is positive. This is bearing in mind that any other grounds can be used if the tenants are not in good standing or not behaving well.
In the social sector, there will be a duty to house a family, maybe in alternative accommodation, if they have a housing need. That duty does not exist in the private sector, so the danger is that all we are doing is putting the burden on local authorities. That family will go very quickly to the local authority, and they will be accommodated in emergency or temporary accommodation. Putting that additional burden on the local authority does not seem reasonable. It is also difficult for the authority, because effectively there is now a two-year period of potential eviction and homelessness for that family. That does not seem a good situation for either the local authority or the family. Can the Minister give some rationale for the proposal? I am particularly interested in why he thinks the period should exist at all.
Jacob Young
I thank the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for tabling amendments 151 and 152, which seek to restrict the use of ground 7. I also thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown, for his comments. Ground 7 permits a landlord to evict when a tenancy has passed on by will or intestacy, following the death of an assured tenant. Landlords will not usually be able to evict bereaved spouses or partners from their only home on that ground. Eligible bereaved spouses or partners are, by law, entitled to succeed the tenancy, as long as the named tenant did not themselves succeed. When succession occurs, the ground cannot be used.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
My understanding is that the Minister is referring to a legal partner or spouse, unless he can reassure me that he is not. Many people might not be legally married or be in a civil partnership. That puts them at risk, does it not?
Jacob Young
I understand the hon. Member’s concerns. I will write to him to clarify that point.
Amendment 152, tabled by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, would reduce the time in which landlords can initiate proceedings back down to 12 months. We have been told by a number of social housing providers that it can often take longer to establish whether succession has occurred. Indeed, the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown, mentioned that as well. That can hinder providers’ ability to regain possession from someone who is not entitled to social housing, and therefore prevent the property from being occupied by someone who is.
It is right that private tenants cannot name anyone they want to succeed their tenancy, as that would leave the landlord with no control over who lives in their property. Therefore, it is vital that ground 7 remains available to both private and social landlords. The ground will not be used frequently, and provides the right balances in those instances when it is used. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will withdraw his amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I take on board what the Minister says about the rationale for the 24-month period for social rented landlords. The situation he mentioned would not arise if he accepted amendment 151 and confined the use of the ground to the social rented sector. I will not press the amendment to a vote, but I am not convinced by the Minister’s argument for why ground 7 should continue to be used in this way. I do not think it would bind the landlord unnecessarily if we said that someone who lives with a person whose name is on the tenancy, but is not their legal partner—the Minister did not refute the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown—should not be at risk of eviction simply because the person on the tenancy died. I worry about the implications of the threat of eviction hanging over their head for 24 months. However, as we may return to the issue at a later stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 180, in schedule 1, page 74, line 20, leave out “After Ground 8” and insert “Before Ground 9”.
This amendment would move new Ground 8A from the list of mandatory grounds for possession (in Part I of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988) to the list of discretionary grounds for possession (in Part II of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 153, in schedule 1, page 74, line 20, leave out paragraph 22.
This amendment would remove the new ground for possession for repeated rent arrears.
Amendment 154, in schedule 1, page 74, line 22, leave out “three” and insert “one”.
This amendment would limit the period to demonstrate repeated serious rent arrears to one year.
Amendment 155 in schedule 1, page 74, line 25, leave out “a day” and insert “two weeks”.
This amendment would extend the period during which at least two months’ rent was unpaid from a day to two weeks.
Amendment 156 in schedule 1, page 74, line 28, leave out “a day” and insert “two weeks”.
This amendment would extend the period during which at least two months’ rent was unpaid from a day to two weeks.
Matthew Pennycook
The amendments, which stand in my name and the names of my hon. Friends, concern the proposed new mandatory ground 8A that is inserted into the 1988 Act by paragraph 22 of schedule 1. For the purposes of debating this new mandatory possession ground, it is important that the Committee understands precisely what is proposed. The new ground would require a court to award possession if, over a period of three years, a tenant fails to pay at least two months of rent for a day or more on three separate occasions or, in instances where rent is required by the tenancy agreement in instalments of less than a month, at least eight weeks’ rent goes unpaid for a day or more, again, on at least three separate occasions.
There is an existing ground 8 that covers serious rent arrears. That existing ground requires the court to award possession where a tenant is at least two months in arrears at the time that a notice is served and at the point of the court hearing, with an exemption provided for benefit entitlements that have not been paid. That exemption is expanded to explicitly cover universal credit payments by paragraph 21 of schedule 1.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
I am interested in the argument that the hon. Gentleman is making, although I am slightly confused by some elements of it. Given the fact that he suggested that the likelihood of its occurrence were vanishingly small, why does he think that any landlord would lobby the Government to include something that, based on the statistics he has quoted, they have never had experience of? I can only say that in my experience, anecdotally—I do not have anything that I can reference for it—a number of people have adopted this approach previously, and it is frustrating for both the courts and landlords. However, I follow the argument that the hon. Gentleman is making; it is very interesting.
Matthew Pennycook
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has decided to contribute, because he has a huge amount of experience in this area. I hope that I was as clear as possible when making the case that ground 8A can be gamed; that there are already mechanisms to deal with it under existing ground 8; and that the numbers are likely to be incredibly small. I suggest that the reason the Government included it is that tenants will collectively feel the force of the new mandatory grounds for possession, and many of them will leave their tenancy under threat of it being served, rather than it being practically served. It is a deterrent to challenging and asserting one’s rights, and, as I will explain, we do not think it is necessary. We are extremely concerned about how the ground might operate and the fact that it could lead to a great many vulnerable tenants being evicted. It is a punitive and draconian measure that will cause great hardship. It is not necessary—this is the important point, in answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question—to tackle genuine instances of persistent arrears or the occasional instance when a problem tenant seeks to deliberately avoid ground 8A action.
These are not tenants who might simply refuse to pay their rent. By implication, those tenants will still be dealt with under the serious rent arrears ground 8. To be evicted under ground 8A, a tenant will need to have fallen into arrears and then worked them off twice in a period of three years. Many will have paid the two periods of arrears off in full, and between them could have been fully up to date with their rent. The new ground will cover many tenants who, for whatever reason, are waiting to receive a lump sum in order to clear their arrears—people who are self-employed or struggling with late payments and those in similar circumstances. To be clear, these are people who are trying to do the right thing and doing precisely what we would expect them to do—namely, trying to put the situation right. As Darren Baxter from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation put it in the evidence he provided to the Committee,
“it is punishing people for doing the right thing.”––[Official Report, Renters (Reform) Public Bill Committee, 14 November 2023; c. 15, Q13.]
We agree with the chief executive of Citizens Advice, Dame Clare Moriarty, who argued last week that the measure targets a group of people, many of whom “are probably in crisis”. We are talking about people who are almost certainly struggling to keep afloat, people in insecure employment, or people whose lives and finances may have suffered multiple adverse shocks.
There is also a real concern that the measure will encompass particularly vulnerable groups of tenants. For example, the Domestic Abuse Housing Alliance-led National Housing and Domestic Abuse Policy and Practice Group—that is a mouthful, Mr Gray—has suggested that the new ground presents a significant risk to victims of domestic abuse, who are more likely to accumulate rent arrears due to economic abuse and the economic impact of feeling domestic abuse.
The common denominator will be that the tenants are likely to be doing everything they possibly can to retain their tenancy and their home. As Dame Clare Moriarty rightly put it last week:
“These are people who are either suffering multiple adverse life events or possibly trying to avoid losing the roof over their head by borrowing in insecure ways, but they need help and advice, not to be evicted.”––[Official Report, Renters (Reform) Public Bill Committee, 14 November 2023; c. 15, Q13.]
The idea that we are instead talking about a bunch of people familiar enough with ground 8A of schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988 to sit down and work out how they can game it is frankly insulting. So troubled are we by the proposed new mandatory ground 8A that, unlike with any of the other new possession grounds that the Bill seeks to introduce, we believe it should be removed from the legislation altogether. By leaving out paragraph 22, amendment 153 would achieve that, and we intend to press it to a vote.
If, as we fully expect, the Government resist the removal of new mandatory ground 8A from the Bill, we will press the Government to consider at least making it a discretionary rather than a mandatory ground. Then at least the court would have to consider whether the tenant had inadvertently fallen into arrears three times over the specified period and whether they could reasonably be expected to make up the arrears and pay their rent on time and in full going forward—an outcome that would obviously be advantageous for the landlord, who would not lose income during the void period. If the court believed that the tenant could not do so or was likely to fail to pay their rent again in the future, they could still make an outright possession order under a discretionary ground. As Liz Davies KC argued in her evidence last week, a discretionary 8A ground would not be
“a ‘get out of jail free’ card for the tenant, by any means.”––[Official Report, Renters (Reform) Public Bill Committee, 16 November 2023; c. 106, Q135.]
Amendment 180 would have the effect of moving ground 8A from part 1 of schedule 2 to the 1988 Act to part 2, thus rendering it discretionary. We urge the Minister to give that serious consideration. The county courts, as we have heard, are extremely good at looking at rent arrears histories and judging whether an outright possession order is warranted.
Lastly, if the Government will not countenance removing new ground 8A entirely or making it discretionary rather than mandatory, we urge the Minister to at least tighten it in ways that will make it far less punitive. Amendments 154 to 156 seek to achieve that by reducing the period in which repeated serious rent arrears must take place from the proposed three years to one, and by extending the period during which at least two months of rent arrears were unpaid from a single day to two weeks. Those three amendments, if accepted, would at least ensure that ground 8A is utilised only in instances where a tenant is almost continuously falling into arrears for extended periods of time. As I have said, we feel very strongly about this group of amendments. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to each.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I rise to support the amendments. I think this clause is particularly pernicious. I do not know whether other Members do this, but I have a tendency in the evening, when my staff have all gone home, to sit at the telephone lines, see who rings in and pick up the calls. I probably should not do that, but I like to get a feeling for who is ringing. They are usually the people who are in crisis. I do not do it every evening, so if constituents try and ring, they will not always get me, but on a Friday afternoon or evening, I will pick up the phone. Invariably, one of those people will be in crisis.
It will be the tradesperson who has again not been paid for the job that he has been working on for the past month, or perhaps the payment has been delayed—we know that there are huge problems with people paying small businesses. Or it will be the person who has been trying to scrimp and save, and has not yet gone to universal credit or any of the support agencies, despite probably being eligible, out of pride or a belief that they could get out of it. They have borrowed money from friends and family, and over a period of time repeatedly dipped down, but they always managed to get themselves back up, usually on their own terms, but this time it has just been a bit too much.
The problem is that, by the time that those people have rung my office, it is too late, because they will have dipped up and down a number of times over the past year—or three years, potentially—and the reason for their holding off getting help is because, every time before, they have managed to build back up. However, now, for the third time, we will move to a non-discretionary, mandatory ground. They will phone up their local citizen’s advice bureau or their MP’s office, or go round to the council, but we will be able to say only one thing: “I’m sorry, there’s nothing we can do because it’s a mandatory ground.”
I think that that is particularly pernicious and nasty, because these are people who we know are good for it in the long term. They will often be people who can raise the money eventually but have cash-flow problems, perhaps through no fault of their own. As I said, a lot of tradespeople will suffer some of these problems. They are having to pay out money for supplies to continue their work; the money does not come in in some months, and two months’ arrears can quite easily build up.
That feeling—that they might have to spend the rent to be able to buy the materials to build the building that they can get the money for—is a choice that they have to make all the time. While that is of course not encouraged, it surely is better that we encourage them to make good in the end and build themselves up, so that that does not happen repeatedly, rather than push them out. Of course, an eviction makes them more likely to spiral into further difficulties, which is why making this a mandatory measure is so unpleasant. The reality is that a payment plan, in many situations—or a deferred order in most situations—would suffice, and the courts can implement that at the moment.
The idea that we need this as a mandatory ground is also dangerous, as we have heard, because, what would my advice or an advice centre’s advice be, on that third occasion? “Well, you’re going to get the eviction notice anyway. Prioritise the other debts that you need to pay off, or making sure that your family have food on the table, rather than considering the rent a priority.” That is not good for the landlord either. Having to reclaim money through the courts from those groups of people in a speedy manner is nigh on impossible, and eviction is not what most landlords want. They want a payment and to be able to ensure that that support is there.
It would be much better either to not have this clause or to have a discretionary ground that requires engagement with debt advice and advisers. There is also much that can be done through court processes, as we saw during covid. As I have mentioned, for section 21s and other forms of evictions, the landlord—when permitted—had to demonstrate that they had taken covid into account and had sought to advise the tenant of the support offered under the covid regime. Aspects like that need to be incorporated here. Again, it does not always need to be on the face of the Bill, but there need to be reassurances that it is incorporated in a binding way, to be able to process these elements. The Minister needs to relent on this.
Ms Buck
Once again, the Government are falling into the trap of creating a system that will create problems for itself, because they refuse to accept the sheer complexity of real people’s lives. Making these grounds mandatory will prevent the courts from doing what they are so good at, which is considering the circumstances that prevail in individual cases. Not only will that inevitably lead to many families and individuals who are struggling with difficult circumstances losing their homes, but it will have a direct impact on local authorities, because this is yet another driver of homelessness and other pressures on local councils. This does not do away with the problem; it moves the problem somewhere else.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it causes another problem for those families, because hard-pressed councils might find them intentionally homeless? Generally, if someone is evicted for rent arrears, they are found intentionally homeless. Although reference has to be made to particular circumstances, I imagine that a court order with that result would lead to no landlord taking them on and to the council not helping them. There are then families floating around the system, with social services ultimately taking children into care.
Ms Buck
I agree with my hon. Friend about all this. In fact, tragically, my office is dealing at the moment with a family where the children have been taken into care as a consequence. These things can indeed happen; we have touched on that occasionally in the passage of this Bill, but I just wish that the Government had not rather short-sightedly removed things like debt advice from the scope of legal aid provision. If we had been able to intervene in many of these cases, we could have prevented these problems from ending up as a crisis. The solution to that is outside this Bill.
I concede that there are undoubtedly some people who persistently fail to pay their rent. That is absolutely the case, and it drives landlords mad—rightly so. I think the rumours of it create a much larger problem than actually exists, but there are people who do it, and it is essential that there are powers for the court to deal with that. The people who are doing that will frequently disappear before the case ever gets to court anyway, and will try their luck not paying their rent with another landlord. We need powers to deal with that, but so many of the people who end up in this situation do so because of a set of very, very difficult circumstances that have thrown them into chaos.
Here are just some of the cases that my office and I have dealt with over the course of a few months. There is the small shopkeeper and private tenant who was burgled; he lost his stock and his income, and it took him a while to sort out the insurance claim, during which time he got into very serious arrears. There is the young father on a zero-hours contract who found himself, several times during the year, expecting to have an income but finding that he was not called into work for two or three weeks at a time. Each time, it caused a set of problems.
The Minister may say that that is what social security and housing benefit are supposed to be for. I do not know whether the Minister has ever tried to claim universal credit or housing benefit on a variable income, with all the documentation that has to be prepared. It is an absolute living hell.
One of the safeguards in the Bill is supposed to be that the ground will not affect people who have a benefit entitlement that has been delayed, which, as we know, reflects a structural problem with universal credit. However, many of the difficult cases involve the entitlement to benefit being disputed in the first place, and that is a whole different ball game.
I had a case not that long ago in which a mother and her three children were days away from an eviction, not because they were deemed not to be entitled to benefit, but simply because after a relationship breakdown the benefit claim had for some reason not been transferred, despite repeated efforts. Over three years, that led to huge arrears. Each time, it was settled, but then the same structural problem occurred yet again, which left the family vulnerable. We were able to sort it out, but the case would not have fallen under the safeguards that the Minister will no doubt claim apply in this case.
Siobhain McDonagh
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the groups of people for whom it is most difficult to get housing benefit or universal credit correct is self-employed minicab drivers, because of the difficulties in assessing the costs involved in being self-employed? They regularly get a decision on their benefit claim only to have it change and have money taken back, while they remain on exactly the same income.
Ms Buck
I absolutely agree. It is an issue for the self-employed; the very small businesses operating at the margin; the people who, because of the structure of our labour market, dip in and out of employment and have highly variable earnings; and the people who are on zero-hour contracts. It is exactly those people who end up in difficulties. It would be lovely if the system had the competency and level of provision to help those people, but all too often it does not. Many young people and vulnerable people—for instance, after a relationship breakdown or a bereavement—do not know where to go for advice. They try to help themselves and fail to do so.
Ground 8A is both disproportionate to the scale of the problem and unnecessary, because there are powers in the system to deal with rent arrears anyway. It will inevitably lead to further evictions, which will be concentrated among those people who have the biggest problems, who will end up making claims for homelessness support from local authorities.
The Minister does not need to go down this route. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich said, if the Government do not want to go all the way to removing the reformed ground 8A, which would be the simplest way, there are layers of protection that could be built into the system. The Minister should trust the courts: that is what they are for. They are good at this, they are experienced at this, and they know how to tell a charlatan from somebody with genuine and complex problems. The measure will place an unnecessary burden on the most vulnerable people, and I genuinely believe that the Minister will have cause to regret its implementation.
Jacob Young
I think we can all agree that it is better for a tenancy to continue where possible, and we encourage landlords and tenants to work together when rent arrears arise. However, sometimes a tenancy cannot be sustained, and in such instances it is right that landlords have certainty. Ground 8A is intended to support landlords when a tenant is repeatedly falling into serious arrears. It will also prevent tenants from repeatedly paying down a small amount of arrears to frustrate possession proceedings brought on ground 8.
Jacob Young
I shall endeavour to write to the hon. Lady with such evidence, if there is any.
The Government have set a high bar for the ground. Tenants must fall into serious arrears three times within a rolling period of three years, which is already a significant financial burden for landlords to bear, particularly at a time of rising costs in the sector. Amendments 153 to 156 and 180 seek to narrow the ground. They propose that each instance of arrears must last two weeks, rather than one day, and must fall within a one-year period. That is simply too high a financial cost to ask landlords to bear. It would severely limit the availability of the ground.
The ground must also remain mandatory. As the Committee has heard, there is already a discretionary ground, ground 11, for persistent delays in rent payments, but that does not offer certainty to landlords. Ground 8A is intended to give certainty to all parties: a defined threshold that can lead to eviction. We therefore think that the ground strikes the right balance. I ask that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich withdraw the amendment.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Mr Mohindra.)
Westminster Hall
(1 year, 1 month 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
International Men's Day
(1 year, 1 month 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
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered International Men’s Day.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, especially after all the work that you, Mr Davies, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) have already done on this subject. We are here to celebrate International Men’s Day, which took place on Sunday 19 November. It is a day to celebrate all the good that men have done, but also a day to shine a light on the things that adversely affect men so much.
The theme this year was suicide. Thirteen men a day take their life. Thirteen men who woke up yesterday morning are no longer with us—and today, another 13, and tomorrow, again, another 13. Every day, every week, every year. Just let that sink in. Thirteen men, every day, think the only out is to take their life. In 2023, that cannot be right, can it?
What is the answer? Sadly, there is no silver bullet, but there are steps we can take—steps we must take—and suicide is not the only issue affecting men, so I am going to take us through a few of them but then through some solutions too.
Let me start by taking us through a boy’s life. Let us call him Tommy. Tommy never asked to be born—none of us did—but Tommy is here. Tommy needs care and attention from day one, not just from mum at home, but also from dad. Human interaction is crucial to a child’s development. Playing peekaboo is, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) said, so much more important than we would think.
Sadly, Tommy’s mum and dad argue a little too much. Money, housing, health, work—there are so many things that make relationships hard. We know that life is not easy; that is why marriage vows have, for centuries, included the words, which we all know, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health. Tommy’s parents separate. Sadly, too many times, it turns into a battle. In come the solicitors. To win their case, too many use blame as a tool, a child as a weapon. The legal system makes it so hard for children. Lawyers want to win at all costs, parents say things that should not be said, and the truth is often embellished on all sides. An acrimonious split is achieved. Tommy now does not see dad, and Tommy’s mum now has it all to do. Not work, rest and play; just work, then work at home, and then little sleep for Tommy’s mum.
What of Tommy’s dad? Dad is ousted from the home, unable to see his son. Many fathers are prevented unfairly. There is child maintenance to be paid; the Child Maintenance Service presents another challenge. Tommy’s dad often turns inwards and often to the fridge, looking for relief. It could be beer, the wrong food, both—or worse.
Little Tommy gets a PlayStation and a smartphone. The world wide web influencers now come into play in Tommy’s life. They want to sell a brand and themselves; they have no care for what little Tommy sees. Tommy’s schoolwork suffers. There are no male teachers at his school—there are very few male teachers now—no role models to follow other than the wrong ones. There is a decreasing number of positive male role models on TV. Tommy plays up at school. Nobody expects anything of him—written off at such an early age. Knowing this, Tommy plays up even more. One day, he finds himself excluded from school. Tommy becomes easy prey. A local gang shows him respect for now, shows interest for now. Antisocial behaviour follows: disrespect for police, drugs, a knife, a spell inside. Mum is in despair. Where did it go wrong?
Tommy’s father is now probably overweight. He is drinking too much, has anxiety, no sense of value and feels that he has nothing to live for. Sadly, Tommy’s dad becomes another statistic; one of the 13 a day who die by suicide. Tommy finds a girl amid this car crash of a life. They want to make a go of it together. They have a beautiful little boy—Tommy junior—and, sadly, the cycle begins again. That is quite depressing, but we all know that it is true.
It really does not need to be like that. As I said, there is no silver bullet, but there might be something close. Let me go through this and show how it cuts across all Departments of the Government. Tommy’s first 1,001 days are so important. We need to push the family hubs out across the country as soon as possible—Department: Work and Pensions.
Keeping families together saves so much pain and heartache, and saves the state so much money. Some 66% of mums want to stop at home and look after their child. We need to offer them the same support that we offer mums who want to return to work. Mums have a genuine choice; we need dads to have the same choice. We need to build many more homes where people need them. That way, we will have more choice, which will automatically raise the standard. We also need a fairer tax system for families—Departments: DWP, Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and the Treasury.
To stop the hate and separation, we need a new model when it comes to family law: fairness for fathers, as well as for mothers, and a system that treats fathers as equally in practice as it does in theory. What works in civil litigation does not work here. Little Tommy needs mum and dad, so that has to be the starting point of any separation—Department: Justice.
Influencers need to understand their audience, and the damage that they can do. We have to get them to quit being a problem. The Online Safety Act 2023 will help, but we cannot legislate for people being decent, just as we cannot legislate to force people to be kind. We need to name and shame the culprits.
We need leisure centres and youth clubs. Tommy missed out again yesterday in Edlington; there is no leisure centre for Tommy, so he spends 14,000 hours on his games console, like the average boy does up to the age of 21—Departments: Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and DLUHC.
There are four million children living with only one parent. In 88% of those families, the parent with care of the children is mum. If we assume an even distribution in family size, we can estimate that around 3.52 million children live with their mothers; that is 1.76 million boys without a dad at home. We need to introduce and maintain a flagging system in schools that flags fatherless boys as they start secondary school. All boys need mentorship and to be met with a positive attitude. Fatherless boys need that especially—Department: Education.
When it comes to stopping gangs, the police’s Operation Duxford is working, but we need to do more. We need a zero-tolerance attitude and a broken-window strategy, so that our young people know how to behave. The gangs must be dealt with from the bottom up. Capturing the ring leader is not the answer; he is often replaced within an hour, once caught, so we need to stop his workers on the street—Department: Home Office.
On a quick side note, tags are a deterrent to others, as well as to the one who is tagged. One young man told me that, when he had to wear one, all of the individuals who might have dragged him back into crime actually kept away. They did not want to be with him, because they could be traced. Through being tagged, that young man has been able to leave criminality behind and is now back on the straight and narrow.
I will get back to the Departments. Separated dads are often unable to spend time with their children. They are in despair, and we need to do more to help them. Men may often turn to the wrong lifestyle choices when things are not right. We have an NHS system that does not fit around the patterns that men often work. We need men to discuss their issues, become part of a community, feel valued and have access to their kids—Department: Health and Social Care.
I have listed many Departments, but there are issues for men who work that are covered by so many more. I have heard of loneliness in occupations. With regards to suicide, lonely farmers are a concern. Spending long days in tractors on their own is no good. Isolation is hard to cope with—Department: Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The soldier who leaves the forces and cannot find his way in civilian life on civvy street is another concern—Department: Defence.
The list goes on, and many Departments are doing much to help. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, and Ministers both past and present, have been amazing. They have been listening. Just this weekend, they announced help with issues that so many men face: prostate cancer screening, access to health services online and a taskforce to understand how men access physical services. All of that is good to hear. These steps will undoubtedly save many lives, and it goes further.
The announcement of a men’s health ambassador is great news too—a huge stride forward. We have a Minister for women, and she is doing great work, but if we want to help all the men and boys such as Tommy with their poor life prospects, we must do more. If we want to stop men such as Tommy’s dad taking their own life, and to give Tommy’s mum a life that is not just sheer hard work for seemingly very little return, we need a Minister for men and boys—a Minister who will connect all the dots and join all the Departments together, who will take men’s health and wellbeing seriously, and who will ask the following questions whenever any policy is announced: how does it affect men? How does it affect their families? How does it help society as a whole? As Warren Farrell states:
“When one sex loses, both sexes lose.”
That is very true.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend for presenting a very well-researched speech and for telling us the story of Tommy. Does my hon. Friend believe that it would be a major step forward to have a Minister for men?
Nick Fletcher
Yes, I do. That is what we are building up to, and we desperately need it.
I thank the Minister for everything she has done, but she should use her influence to inform our Prime Minister about the debate and give him this message: no matter how many men there are around his Cabinet table, or how many men there are in the boardrooms of FTSE 100 companies, men still need help. She should tell him not to forget little Tommy. Trust me, he is desperate. Whether he is five, 15 or 25, he is desperate.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
My hon. Friend has made a passionate case for why young boys need very strong male role models. I would argue that young girls and women need those strong role models too. I entirely support his call for a Minister for men, but would he take this opportunity to congratulate A Band of Brothers, a group in my constituency that provides male mentorship? It has seen incredible, inspiring, transformational success in the lives of the young men it has come alongside. That essential ingredient, role modelling, by a more experienced and mature man, has truly made the difference.
Nick Fletcher
I could not agree more. Girls need role models too, which is so important. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on issues affecting men and boys, and as a Member of Parliament who takes this issue so seriously, I ask my hon. Friend to pass on my thanks to the charity for all the work it is doing.
I am the biggest believer in personal responsibility. Not everything can or should be down to the Government, so I ask the nation to talk up men. I ask the nation to look for the good in them. I ask the nation to ask them if they are okay. When they say they are fine, ask them again. Many men are not fine; they need our help and support. Look out for the little Tommy in your community. See if you can be of help to him through his mum or his school. Trust me, if we do not do so, the 13 suicides a day will not stop at 13. The figure will rise, the prisons will only get more full, and too many more women and girls may be hurt along the way.
In conclusion, when the subject of a Minister for boys and men is mentioned, stop sniggering and start supporting. We need to quit being part of the problem and start being part of the solution, because when one sex wins, both sexes win.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is not often I get called first; I appreciate the opportunity. It threw me, but I have read my notes and know what I am going to say. I congratulate the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) on setting the scene so well. He touched on some of the things I wish to speak about: suicide rates, prostate cancer and loneliness. I live on a farm on the Ards peninsula, so appreciate and understand how isolation and loneliness can play a big part in farming communities, simply because of what the job entails. Very often there is the farmer and his dog or his animals; interaction with other people does not happen.
In setting the scene, the hon. Gentleman used the illustration of young Tommy. I know that young Tommy does not exist, but there are young Tommies out there across the community who do. He illustrated that very well with that example and I commend him. It is great to be able to speak in this debate. November is an important month because we can raise awareness of men’s health and wellbeing, particularly mental health and testicular and prostate cancer.
The occasion also gives an opportunity to lead by example, as World Children’s Day is celebrated on 20 November. Having the two sit so close together is a fantastic way to encourage good moral values and responsibility. It is good to talk about these issues in a constructive and positive way. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, as she understands the subject well, and I hope she will give a positive reply to our questions. I also look forward to hearing from the two shadow Ministers. I know their contributions will enhance and enliven the debate, as will others. I am conscious not to leave anybody out.
I want to comment on important statistics related to men’s health. Figures from AWARE NI state that suicide is the leading killer of men under 50 in Northern Ireland. That is a sad reality that nobody wants to think about. Not long ago we had a spate of suicides in my immediate town of Newtownards. They tended to be young men in their early twenties, which is discouraging and worrying. I remember when one young fellow committed suicide, a number of his circle of friends did likewise.
There is the key issue, which is not the Minister’s responsibility, but adds to the debate. I am sure the examples and evidence I give from Northern Ireland will be replicated across the United Kingdom. One in three men in the UK have had suicidal thoughts due to stress. It is no secret that many men view depression as a sign of weakness, choosing to ignore the symptoms. I hope that would not be the case, but recognise that it is. Perhaps the Minister could give us some thoughts on how we can better reach out to those men, to ensure that the stigma they worry about does not drag them down.
Many see the stigma attached to opening up and asking for help. The phrase “man up” is not meant in a derogatory fashion, but as a prompt to strengthen oneself. The fact is that it talks people down, and I think it is wrong to say that when it is taken too literally. Men then suppress their anxieties and try to deal with them inwardly, even when they are not able to. I see no shame in asking for help and I encourage men everywhere to do that. International Men’s Day is the time to reinforce that point.
I referred to life in the rural communities, simply because we are a country of small farms. Some of them are run as one-person businesses, and at others the wife looks after the house and also helps on the farm. Lots of the interaction is very isolated. Funnily enough, yesterday morning someone came to my office—I will not mention her by name—to talk about the problems she is experiencing as a result of rural isolation. The issue applies to both men and women, but I wanted to dwell on it in this debate about International Men’s Day.
I have known a few people over the years who, if we met them today in any company, we would think that they were the life and soul of the party. But the thing is that, when they leave that party and that group of social friends, when they get home and close the door, they are a different person. We should not always think that the person who is jovial, funny, talkative and laughing all the time has no problems, because it is possible that they do.
Samaritans has found that men who live in rural areas are less likely to seek mental health support, and due to the nature of their community they are more likely to feel isolated. At half-past 11 there will be a Samaritans event on suicide prevention in, I think, Speaker’s House. If Members are available, I suggest that they try to get along to that. As someone who represents a partly rural community and who lives in a rural area, I know that this is an incredibly important issue, and I encourage anyone who is feeling confined or isolated not to be ashamed of seeking help.
The same point can be made for veterans too. I wish to underline the issue for veterans separately, because I deal with veterans in my offices every day. The veterans charity Beyond the Battlefield is based in my constituency and its incredible work reminds me of what has been done for former service personnel suffering from PTSD and poor mental health due to the nature of their service. I work with many charities, but I want to mention two in particular in my constituency. I have been involved with Beyond the Battlefield since its inception. It provides accommodation and has applied for another grant through the Ministry of Defence’s veterans scheme. If successful, it will be able to provide more beds to people.
The second charity is SSAFA—the Soldiers’, Sailors’ and Airmen’s Families Association. Every one of us of a certain generation, and perhaps more, will know about SSAFA. I hold a coffee morning for it every year, and this year I think we left with £5,800. That is for coffee, tea and sticky buns, so it really is quite an achievement. People are very generous, and it is quite clear that they give more than what they would usually give for a bun and a cup of coffee.
Karl MᶜCartney
One of the reasons I am standing here is that the hon. Member for Northern Ireland, as many of us think of him, has made some very valid points, including about Samaritans, which has a direct link to my constituency of Lincoln. I do hope to see some Members at Mr Speaker’s event later this morning. We are commending International Men’s Day, and the hon. Gentleman has made some very good points regarding suicide and other issues, but I wanted to stand up so that he did not feel alone. We all know that he intervenes on many of us when we make speeches, and I wanted to return the favour.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Yes, we all share many things in common, and we are here to contribute to the debate in a positive fashion. This House can shine and reach out in a way that is necessary in the society we live in.
I am very conscious of time and that others also want to speak, so I will not go on much longer. Queen’s University Belfast has a prostate cancer centre of excellence, and I mention that because it recognises that prostate cancer is a killer. The hon. Member for Don Valley referred to that in his introduction, because he recognises, like I do, that there is not a full understanding of what it means to men. If someone has a wee problem, they might not do anything about it and say, “Well, sure, I’ll get better by the end of the week,” or, “I’ll get better in a fortnight’s time.” But they do not. I commend Queen’s University, and I look forward to visiting that centre of excellence shortly.
On International Men’s Day, the Government have joined Prostate Cancer UK to unveil a £42 million screening trial to find ways of detecting earlier the UK’s most common cancer in men. When we see that somebody does something good, I commend saying something good about it. There are many times when certain things will happen that we are perhaps concerned about, and we will not register them. The Government have made £42 million available for that purpose—well done. They have recognised the issue. The Minister might comment on that when she speaks later.
That will allow hundreds of thousands of men across the country to participate and remind other men that they are not alone. It is really good that the Government have put their hand in their pocket—on behalf of us all—and made this happen. Thousands of lives could be saved. May I seek clarity from the Minister and ask whether the money will be extended to the devolved nations as well, and whether this issue is devolved? We cannot leave the men of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales behind.
To conclude, let us use this day to duly celebrate the men in our community and the contributions they make. Hon. Members here will know that when it comes to men’s issues, I am here in this House to speak for them, and I do it every time. Today the debate is about International Men’s Day, so I want to make a plea for them. I thank the hon. Member for Don Valley for raising this issue today, and for reminding us that we should always encourage and support emotional stability for everyone out there who is suffering.
Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, in this debate on International Men’s Day. It is a particular pleasure to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for securing this debate, and for making such an important contribution.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the way in which gender stereotypes are harmful to men and boys. Issues include family breakdown, excluded boys being drawn into antisocial behaviour, drugs and crime, and men’s attitudes towards seeking help not just for mental health but health per se, as well as a legal system that too many men feel militates against them, particularly when it comes to family law. I would argue that gender stereotypes, in all their forms, are harmful to human beings, and my hon. Friend made a very cogent case for the way in which they are harmful to men and boys.
I listened very carefully to my hon. Friend’s policy suggestions. I would suggest that if men and women had equal voices at the policymaking tables, we could ensure that the lives of both men and women could be seen in all the polices that come forward in this Parliament. If we encourage male Ministers to do as much as they can, and particularly to look at their female counterparts and the work they do on how gender affects policy, that could go some way towards addressing some of the issues that he is talking about.
It is not good for men if the health system is designed for men, because men have daughters, partners and mothers. We want all our public services to work for men and for women. If we currently have a system where that is not the case, we need to encourage all Ministers—whatever the Prime Minister might decide on a Minister for men—to think about the gender differences that are at play. It is not only the Minister for Women who thinks about Government policies and how they affect women. Many of my female colleagues who are Ministers do a huge amount to think about how their policies will affect women. Perhaps their male counterparts need to be doing similarly.
In Parliament, we make polices and law for people—few are gender specific. But we know—as my hon. Friend has just said—that men and women experience the world very differently. That is why I really welcome this debate on International Men’s Day. As right hon. and hon. Members might know, I often lead the debate on International Women’s Day. That is an opportunity to celebrate the contribution of women, but also to raise a lot of the issues. This debate is just as important, because it reminds us that we live in a gendered world, and we have to deal with that as politicians. We do not make the best policies unless we recognise that there is a difference.
I am sure you will not be surprised to know, Mr Davies, that I would love a world where gender is no longer an issue that drives the sort of differences that my hon. Friend just talked about, but we deal with the world as it is, not as we would like it to be. He is absolutely right that we need to consider gender when we develop policies. Chromosomal difference, although significant, is not really what he was talking about when he set out the parameters of this debate; those differences are added to by societal norms. We could have an enormous debate about nature versus nurture; I would say that nurture plays a huge part in many of the issues that my hon. Friend clearly articulated.
International Men’s Day is not only about the issues that I will come to in a moment; it is about celebrating the men in our lives and the amazing contribution men make. Men shape our lives, whether we are women or men. My father told me to go to the best university I could, and that my imagination was the only limit to my achievements—crumbs, that is a fantastic role model to have. It is about my brothers, my husband and my sons being there; such are the people who shape our lives. There are far more men in my life than women, although I give a special call-out to my daughter and mother, because they are very special too. Men are there to shape our lives, and I do not think there is anybody in this Chamber who would argue differently.
All the evidence shows—my hon. Friend made this point—that men’s and women’s lives are different. We should be concerned about the pressures that men face, including the pressure to conform to notions of masculinity, which I would argue are very out of date. I hope my sons do not feel that pressure, but I am sure they do. I do not want their childhood to be filled with phrases such as, “Don’t start acting like a girl.” I hope that is in the past, but perhaps it is not. To be branded as the breadwinner in adult life puts huge pressure on men. In reality, one in three women earn more than their partners or husbands, yet society still sees men as the breadwinner. We treat each other differently because of our gender, and the evidence shows that, as a result, we live different lives.
In the UK, we find gender a difficult concept. That came out in the trans debate recently. It also came out in 2013, when many people found it quite difficult that the Government said it was wrong for the state not to allow people of the same gender to marry. I was the Minister at the time, and we changed the law to enable that to happen and for it to be a happy occasion.
That we continue to have a gender pay gap clearly shows that society treats men and women differently, and too many boys are still being told to “man up” during their childhood. We treat men and women differently. I do not think that is right, and the world would be a better place if we outlawed those sorts of gender stereotypes.
Nick Fletcher
My right hon. Friend is making a very good speech. She mentioned the gender pay gap, and I keep hearing this all the time. Will she confirm—she has an awful lot of experience of that issue—that it is illegal for anybody to pay a man more than a woman to do the same job?
Dame Maria Miller
I think my hon. Friend is probably thinking about something different. The gender pay gap is about looking at groups of people who earn differently for doing the same thing in their workplace. It is not about pay levels—pay rates for the individual. If my hon. Friend looks at the data available now, he will see that the gender pay gap has actually disappeared for groups of men and women in their 20s and 30s, and quite remarkably it reappears vigorously over the age of 40. When companies look at what they pay groups of people who are over the age of 40, they will see that women are paid less. I wonder why that is. The average age of giving birth is now around 30—it is a lot older than when I had my first child. It is women who are finding it very difficult to come back into the jobs market and get jobs that are actually comparable with their qualifications. There is also an issue around productivity there.
This debate, however, is not about women. It is about men and we should focus on International Men’s Day. In this day and age, I think that most men want to see fairness at work and, if they have a female spouse, for them to paid fairly. I do not think that this is necessarily about men wanting to gang up on women. It is societal structures and norms that are causing the problems. We, as politicians, have a great deal to do to reset those societal norms and to ensure that the structures do not create a perpetuation of gender stereotypes, which, as my hon. Friend set out, are so harmful, particularly to men and boys.
I think that Brits are far less comfortable than our continental friends in agreeing that inequality between the genders is serious. There has been some research done to suggest that, in continental Europe, one in three sees gender inequality as a serious concern, whereas in the UK that figure is one in four. Perhaps, as a society, we need to challenge ourselves a bit more on these things.
As both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) have said, the way in which our public services are structured, in terms of perpetuating some of these gender stereotypes and inequalities for men, is best seen in our health service when it comes to men’s health. It is quite concerning that men are expected to live almost three years less than women, which is extraordinary. It is even more extraordinary that I do not really see a policy to directly address that. There are some policies there and, of course, the Minister has huge expertise as a Health Minister, so she will turn to matters such as the prostate cancer work being done.
Cancer rates are 20% higher among men, and men are more likely to go to hospital with heart disease, more likely to smoke, more likely to die from alcohol conditions, more likely to use illegal drugs, and more likely to die in a workplace accident. The Government do have policies, but are they really focused on the disproportionate way in which those issues affect men? I think they probably do on heart disease, and obviously they do on prostate cancer—although, again, there are issues for trans people, particularly trans women, in accessing those healthcare systems.
In terms of men’s mental health, there is an increasing gap between men and women. As my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley said, suicide rates among men are a concern. In fact, they are not just a concern; we have seen that women’s suicide rates have halved and men’s suicide rates have fallen just a fraction. Again, I challenge the Minister to ensure that we have a gendered approach to healthcare in our country.
Let us not pretend that there are no differences between men and women—there are. I would like to see a world where men and women are recognised for their separate needs and one where we celebrate our differences, but our aim should be to remove that difference when it is destructive, to enable us all to live in peace and prosperity together. That is the way in which we are going to have the best world possible.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and I congratulate and thank the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) on how he approached this topic and for his powerful speech. Men do face critical challenges because they are men—and young boys too—whether it is about mental health, violence or family breakdown. Too often this debate is seen as if there has to be an equal ledger of suffering before we will acknowledge those challenges. We do everybody a disservice if we ignore those concerns in favour of culture war arguments about whether James Bond could be a woman or whether Andrew Tate is what every man would be if they could get away with it, or if we simply snigger. I agree with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in so many ways, and I am so pleased to see him here today and able to contribute.
I want to take up the hon. Member for Don Valley’s challenge and talk up a particular group of men for which the term is too often loaded with negative connotations: dads. It is such an important role, but so often the butt of a joke: deadbeat dads; absentee fathers; daddy daycare; dad bods; dad jokes; sugar daddies; baby daddies; “Who is your daddy?” Our images of fatherhood are rarely ones we would wish people to replicate. Think of those famous fathers: Darth Vader; Homer Simpson; Phil Dunphy in “Modern Family”; Kevin in “Motherland”; Don Draper; Uncle Phil in “The Fresh Prince of Bel Air; Jim Royle; “Citizen Khan”; Logan Roy; Tony Soprano; Frank Gallagher—thank God for Bandit in “Bluey”. If they are not trying to take their kids over to the dark side or bullying them into a life of crime, the message is overwhelmingly that the mental load of parenting is something mothers deal with, while dads are hapless, indifferent, sidelined or, at best, cash machines.
However, a wealth of evidence tells us that dads spending time with their children leads to better outcomes. If children spend more time with their fathers at the age of nine months, by the age of three they show more positive emotions. Increasing a father’s role in a kid’s life leads to higher educational attainment and lower behavioural difficulties for both boys and girls in primary school. Indeed, the educational effect is even more profound when it comes to maths—something I know the Prime Minister is concerned about—regardless of gender, ethnicity, age in the school year, or household income. But a recent study in Scotland showed the challenge: a quarter of working dads said that they were “almost never” satisfied with the amount of quality time they got to spend with their kids—a pressure that is particularly profound for fathers of very young children.
We spend so much time in this place telling women how to be good mums. On International Men’s Day, it is time we redress the balance. The secret is that it is the same for both parents: it is about being present for kids, day in, day out, every day and all day. That is really hard in a country that does not talk about it—especially when it comes to dads—let alone value it enough to make it financially possible and socially acceptable for all.
I want to thank all those leading the change and leading the charge for fathers: Elliott Rae and the amazing MusicFootballFatherhood; Street Fathers, led by Colin James, which is helping young men make the transition from boyhood to manhood in my constituency; the Men’s Sheds project, which helps dads and men to connect and talk; the Fatherhood Institute, MANUP? and CALM for the work they are doing to tackle male mental health challenges and the dad stereotypes that the hon. Member for Don Valley set out.
Our men and boys and what they need from their dads are at the heart of so much in our society. They need dads of the involved kind—not the controlling kind, the violent kind, or the absent at work kind. The kind who does not turn around 20 years later to say, “I was away so much when my kids were growing up. I don’t know them at all.” Not the ones who say, “Ask your mum,” rather than asking themselves how they could do something and role-modelling it for their kids.
For that to become the norm, we need a Government and a country that does not think that is woke, but wise. But the last time Parliament debated how to support fathers was in 2019. The word “patriarchy” is on the record more times than “paternity”; it is a word we do not refer to unless we are talking about the Father of the House. Yes, we have a women’s mental health strategy, and that is very welcome, but as the hon. Member for Don Valley pointed out, we do not have a men’s mental health strategy. The Government’s own childcare strategy only talks about how it would benefit mums. The hon. Member for Don Valley is right: we should be asking how it benefits both parents. This year, the Government published a written ministerial statement pledging to make it easier for fathers to take flexible leave and parental leave, but that did not make it into the King’s Speech—unlike pedicabs.
Today is chance for us to collectively to reclaim “dad”; to challenge the idea that men are too stupid, too weak, too absent, too deadbeat; to help the dads working three jobs on poverty pay, never getting to see their kids grow up; and to help them be the dads that our kids, our country, and their mental health need them to be.
I have a very simple start for the Minister: how can we actually make parental leave work for dads? We know that one in 10 women experiences post-partum disorders and depression, but actually one in 10 dads experiences post-partum anxiety, which starts when the baby is born and does not stop. A 2008 study found that lower levels of cognitive development in children were associated with having a depressed dad. We should want to tackle men’s mental health problems in their own right, but also recognise that by doing so and being explicit about it, we will also help many more people around them.
So many dads are not spending the time they want with their kids because they just cannot afford to do so. More than three times more women than men claim parental leave pay. On average, new fathers take just two weeks—the statutory minimum entitlement—which is a pitiful amount of time to be able to bond with their child. That amount of leave increases only among the very wealthy. Only men with a household income of £200k or more take an average of 10 weeks.
Dame Maria Miller
It is interesting that the hon. Lady has brought up the amount of time that men take off for parental leave. There is also data that would suggest that even when more paid parental leave is available, it is not taken up because of a fear that both men and women feel: if we take time off around pregnancy, we are in some way letting people down. The hon. Lady, as somebody who has had children, may recognise that. Men feel the same way. It is more than simply having that offer of money; we also need an attitudinal change towards people taking the time off in the first place.
Stella Creasy
I absolutely agree with the right hon. Lady, whose remarks prefigure mine. Money does matter. When 43% of men say that financial hardship prevents them from taking additional leave, it matters what they get paid, in the same way that when women do not get proper statutory maternity cover, it affects our decisions. However, we also know that 17% of men cite pressure from their employer. Women’s careers get written off; men’s relationships with their children get written off. Nobody is winning in our current environment.
We need to increase the amount of time men are entitled to, but we also need to change the way we do this. We need to stop it being about men versus women and share the cost. I hope the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) will agree that it is about time we stopped making this issue something that just the mum’s employer has to deal with. If we want shared parental leave, we should share the cost of providing parental leave between both the mum’s employer and the dad’s employer so that everybody has a vested interest in helping to support that family, ensuring that the employers who benefit from it also contribute to it. Let us be honest: the dad’s employer benefits when the mum takes on the load.
Let us end the mum penalty that means women feel their careers pay the price. Let us challenge the idea that men taking care of their children and stepping up to share that responsibility is something shameful that they should do in such a way that nobody notices they are gone.
The hon. Member for Don Valley is also right to say that it is not just about financial cost. Elliott Rae has a fantastic campaign about “parenting out loud”. Women know that when they do that, they get judged; men need to do it to show a different way forward. What does he mean by parenting out loud? Rather than hiding parental responsibilities, men in leadership positions should talk about those responsibilities and role model how to combine them with the work they do, whether that is leaving work to go to a school parents evening or working from home to help to cover doctors’ appointments.
That is why when Ministers attack working from home or flexible working, it is not just mums whose opportunities they are closing down, but dads—as well as the next generation—who miss out on the impact of the extra hours they could spend with their children without having to commute. The good news is that we have empirical research on that. During the pandemic, men doubled the amount of childcare they were doing. The Fatherhood Institute recognised that it would take double that time—an extra eight hours—to get the same benefit of the father-child relationship. Parents can either spend two hours on a train getting to and from work or two hours helping our child to learn to read. I know which I think would be better for economy, better for their mental health and better for our society.
Whenever we take our vision of fatherhood from those value it least, men miss out. We would not frame our debate about financial exclusion based on the antics of Bernie Madoff, so why do we let those men who boast that they have never changed a nappy or that they were in the pub when their kid was born decide how dads rear their children? We should stop lauding men who do anything as if it is a surprise and they should be congratulated. They are the men who want a medal for taking their child to swimming. Instead, we should start asking how men can be the dads they want to be—present and equal in looking after their children, 24 hours a day, day in and day out—because that is what it takes to raise a child who will thrive. When we do that, the evidence is that it is good for men’s families, men’s relationships and our economy. On this International Men’s Day, we should finally let dads be dads.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for securing this incredibly vital debate and for the way that he set out little Tommy’s life, all the issues that can spiral out of control, and the cycle that can go on and on if we do not do something about it.
I will take the time to thank the two men who are closest to me in my life at the moment. First, I could not stand here today were it not for the help that my husband gives to raise our daughter while I am 300 miles away for half of every week. If he was not being the kind of dad that the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) just described, I would not be able to do this job; indeed, if other men did not behave similarly, other women would not be able to come forward and enter this place.
Also, I thank my dad. He was diagnosed with prostate cancer less than a month after I came to this place, so I want to put out this message to all men—please, please, please take advantage of the screening programme that is coming, because the only symptom that my dad had was a bad back. He had tests and went to chiropractors for a couple of months, before finally going for an MRI scan. It turned out that the cancer had spread and he was in really bad shape. There but for the grace of God go we. He has now gone into complete remission and is doing very well, thank you very much, but that is more through luck than anything else. I pay tribute to the fabulous care that he received from the Royal Cornwall Hospital, but on another day he may not have been so lucky. Please will all the men who are listening to or watching this debate take advantage of all the tests that they are offered.
As many people know, I chair both the all-party parliamentary group on women’s health and the all-party parliamentary group on baby loss, so a lot of my work in this place is about ensuring that women are listened to, certainly during maternity care and when they experience the other health issues that women face. I absolutely welcome all the work that the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), has done in this space.
Through representing the beautiful constituency of Truro and Falmouth and living among all the men and women there, I see men from all kinds of industries and family structures working absolutely tooth and nail for their loved ones. It is vital that we work to level the playing field, and highlight that work, with the same vigour for men as we do for women.
Going back to the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about loneliness in rural communities, loneliness is absolutely front and centre in Cornwall. We sadly hear all too often that somebody has ended their life because of it—not only farmers, but fishermen as well. Fishermen often spend days at sea by themselves. Even if it is just for a couple of days, they are pressurised because their career, their job and their livelihood are so weather-dependent. There is nothing they can do if the weather is not on their side—they literally cannot bring in a wage—and that pressure often means that fishermen turn to alcohol.
One of the things that I wrote to the Chancellor about ahead of the autumn statement was the importance of the village pub. This is going to sound quite strange, but if a man is going to turn to alcohol because of the pressure he is facing, I would much rather that he was in his village pub, with a crowd of people that he knows well and that know him well, than going to the supermarket night after night, picking up a bottle of something and sitting alone at home to drink.
There are lots of reasons why I want to support village pubs, but that one is so important, even if it is something that we just do not talk about. I hope that if anybody is listening to this debate today, they will consider why, for many reasons, it is important to keep village pubs open and look kindly on that campaign. They can be an actual lifesaver.
Through chairing the APPG on baby loss, I know that the focus is often on our talented healthcare professionals, and the Government home in on the mother giving birth. It is easy to forget the broader picture and the role of the entire family unit, especially when we lose a baby and the whole family grieves. It will not come as a surprise to colleagues to be told that the tragic loss of a baby for parents anywhere in our country has a long-lasting and horrific impact on fathers. When it comes to baby loss, our partners are our rock; they are the only person who know exactly what we are going through.
Sadly, a couple who suffer such a loss are 50% more likely to end their relationship within six months than other couples are. Keeping partnerships strong, open and resilient requires, in my opinion and—sadly—experience, a support network outside the relationship, which must come from friends and family. And it often has to provide long-term support to both parents, to preserve the mental health of dad as well as mum. People often forget to ask about how dad is doing after he has lost a baby. People are concerned because mum has given birth and her body is recovering. She is obviously in pieces and does not know where to go. People often look to dad to support her, but he is grieving for his child as well, and we must never forget to ask how dad is doing.
I have championed that principle in my constituency. I am proud to say that our new women and children’s hospital at the Royal Cornwall Hospital in Truro will have facilities on site that will benefit fathers. Examples include simple things such as ensuring spaces are available for parents to say goodbye to their lost babies away from wards where successful births are taking place around them. We need to ensure adequate space for dads on our maternity wards, and Cornwall will be at the cutting edge of that. Support will be provided to parents at the start of the pregnancy. When babies are ready, we will have the best caring facilities to reduce baby loss. Aftercare will be there for young families having children, and support will be available to parents if it all goes wrong.
I take this opportunity to signpost some of the support that is already out there for dads suffering after baby loss. I have worked closely with the charity Tommy’s. For the past few years, it has had an absolutely brilliant—in my opinion, the best—website. It outlines groups and methods that can help men through this particularly tragic form of grief. It has a direct nine-to-five hotline to a midwife. They will talk through concerns and disruptive thought patterns with any dad wanting clarity or answers to their trauma and can recommend that parents reach out to their GP for support through this stage of their life.
The risk of developing PTSD, depression or anxiety increases hugely following the loss of a child, and it is vital that we as Members ensure that both parents get the support they need to fully recover. As my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley said, if a man is a veteran or has had a tough upbringing, such a loss can compound all their experiences; it could be the thing that tips them over the edge.
We also need a proper understanding of workplace rights, as men may need to take time out of work to fully come to terms with such a traumatic loss. The British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy has details of counsellors trained in supporting men through baby loss. Maternity Action has information about miscarriages, stillbirths and neonatal deaths, and explains how to take time off to deal with experiences of them.
In our experience, it is often that a man sees a pregnancy as a pregnancy until the baby is a baby. I do not think that is a failing; pregnancy is just something that happens to women’s bodies, so we often have a different way of looking at it. It is important that all the questions that men have when something goes wrong, or even when there is a potential that something could go wrong, are answered by someone without putting extra pressure on the relationship.
The Baby Mailing Preference Service is brilliant. It can reduce the number of baby-related mail that a man or woman encounters. There is plenty of support out there, but we have a long way to go before these sources fully enter the mainstream and people do not have to go looking for them when the worst happens. I would like mothers, fathers and other birth parents offered bereavement counselling at all NHS trusts as part of the national bereavement care pathway. Under my predecessors, the APPG on baby loss was vital in getting the national bereavement care pathway up and running. We know that it still is not working as it should in all trusts, but we can improve it. Counselling is the thing that we absolutely need to provide.
When it happened to us, my husband got on his boat, turned his key and went straight back to work, and I do not think that was the healthiest way for him to process what had happened. Everyone acts completely differently. We must ensure that the counselling that a man or woman needs is there, and that includes relationship counselling. If there is a sibling, it is even more important that mum and dad can process their grief—whether together or separately—and that they stay together for the long term.
It is important that we find examples of good practice and ensure that they are replicated all over the country. If there are fathers out there who have had good experiences or have suggestions about mental health in this space or the support they received after losing their baby, I would love them to come forward to the APPG so that we can work with them and our partners—Sands, Tommy’s and the Lullaby Trust—to ensure that, on this International Men’s Day, dads are not forgotten, and that we raise the issue and stimulate further action to improve support for fathers.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I am delighted to participate in this debate to mark International Men’s Day 2023. I thank the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) not just for securing the debate, but for the sensitive way that he drew out some very important issues that too often get buried under other matters that we discuss in this place. It is important that we continue to talk about gender equality, equal pay and the pension gender gap, but that does not mean that we cannot be cognisant of and exercised about the very important public health and social challenges that face men and boys. There is no doubt that those challenges and issues exist.
The theme of International Men’s Day 2023 is “Zero Male Suicide”, and that is where I want to focus my attention. The need to help men and boys cope with and understand mental health issues is beyond urgent. As we have heard, the overall suicide rate is 13.9 per 100,000 people—a similar figure to previous years—but male suicide rates are still three times as high as female rates, and in Scotland, 556 men died by suicide last year. Behind every statistic lies a family torn apart and a life that ought not to have been lost.
Suicide is the No. 1 killer of men under the age of 45 in the UK. It kills more men under 45 than car accidents, cancer, drug or alcohol addiction, or any other issue that can end lives. The fact that men take their lives by their own hands in such numbers is truly heartbreaking. We can wring our hands, but there must be something more we can do to reduce those awful statistics. Key to that is seeking to understand why so many men resort to suicide, which is a terrible last act of despair.
One explanation that many point to is the fact that males have traditionally not been expected to admit when they are finding life difficult. A number of Members have talked about the awful expressions that are often used, including “toughing it out” and “manning up”, which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) first mentioned. As a result, men and boys often find it hard to admit when they are struggling and need support, and that can only undermine their mental health and increase their sense of isolation. Problems mount up, but they feel it is weak if they admit it, ask for help or simply need a chat to share their concerns and process their feelings. Instead, they are much more likely to internalise their feelings, which often detrimentally impacts their relationships with their family members and friends—their children, their wives and their extended social relationships.
How we as a society adjust our expectations of men is important. It is okay for someone to admit that they are struggling; it is not a sign of weakness. As boys grow up and develop in their homes, families, schools, workplaces and universities, we need them to learn that they will sometimes need support and that there is no stigma attached to talking to someone if they are suffering. In fact, it is perfectly normal, and actually it could be seen as a sign of strength. If we cannot get men and boys to open up and share their worries, concerns and problems with those closest to them, or a support organisation if that is easier for them, we are unlikely to make a meaningful dent in those awful statistics. Each number is a family torn apart—a life lost that could have been saved.
Although we know that suicide is the biggest cause of death in males under the age of 45, we also know that when it happens, the loved ones left behind are often bewildered. They often did not see it coming. For the rest of their lives, they are left with questions—“What did I miss?”, “Could I have done something to prevent this?”, “Why did they not talk to me?” That is why suicide does not just take lives but tears families apart and leaves wounds that truly never heal.
I pay tribute to the wonderful UK Men’s Sheds Association. In my constituency, I have seen at first hand the fantastic work undertaken by the Three Towns Men’s Shed, which serves Ardrossan, Saltcoats and Stevenston, and the Garnock Valley Men’s Shed, which serves the towns of Kilbirnie, Beith and Dalry. In these sheds, men get together to offer each other friendship, camaraderie and a sympathetic ear. They share practical skills, experiences and problems, and provide a shoulder for each other when times are tough. Men helping each other in their communities is what a men’s shed does at its best, and it is not overstating the case to say that men’s sheds have the potential to transform and save the lives of the men who join them.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Lady is right to underline the issue of men’s sheds. I can think of four men’s sheds in my constituency: in Saintfield—I see them on the third Saturday of every month—Portaferry, Newtownards and Ballybeen. Those four men’s sheds have saved lives, which is what she is referring to.
Patricia Gibson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am delighted with the men’s sheds in my constituency, because the three towns in the Garnock valley are post-industrial areas with great socioeconomic challenges. Sadly, we know that people who are socially and economically disadvantaged are also those at higher risk of suicide and at higher risk of developing mental illness. Middle-aged men living in the most deprived areas face an even higher risk of suicide, with rates of up to 36.6 per 100,000, compared with 13.5 per 100,000 in the least deprived areas.
The changing nature of the labour market over the last 60 years has particularly affected working-class men. With the decline of traditional male industries, they have lost not only their jobs, but a source of masculine pride and identity. We also know that men in midlife tend to remain overwhelmingly dependent on a female partner for emotional support, but today, men are less likely to have one lifelong partner and more likely to live alone, without the social or emotional skills to fall back on. Undoubtedly, loneliness is a significant factor in many male suicides; it puts men’s suicide risk at a higher level. Men’s sheds can truly mitigate that and help men to strengthen their social relationships.
I will briefly mention the impact of allotments. In my constituency, we have the Elm Park allotment in Ardrossan and the Kilbirnie allotment on Sersley Drive, which allow men to get out into the open air and forge friendships. Otherwise, they may be sitting at home, watching the telly and becoming catatonic with loneliness. At the allotments, they develop relationships with other volunteers in a very healthy outdoor environment. In my view, things that build the social fabric of our community, and which help men get together, save lives.
Cherilyn Mackrory
I think the hon. Lady answered my point. Does she feel, as I do, that the way in which society is driving more and more people to be isolated at home with screens, rather than to be out in a community and speaking to other humans, is not healthy? It may end up exacerbating the problem.
Patricia Gibson
Indeed it does, and men are particularly prone to isolation. Women are much more likely to make friendships and chat to people—men not so much.
The value of men’s sheds and allotments cannot be underestimated. On their own, they are not a silver bullet—nothing is—but we are looking to use every tool in our armoury to tackle the terrible phenomenon of male suicide. The Scottish Government provide a lot of support for men’s sheds but, as always, I would like to see more. There is never enough, especially given the transformational power that men’s sheds and allotments have.
The idea of a Minister for men has been mooted today. Given what we know about the suicide statistics and men’s health, I do not think that the idea should be dismissed. It should be actively explored.
It is very important that we have acknowledged and marked International Men’s Day. I know some people do not think that such a day matters, which is part of the problem. We need to acknowledge that our fathers, brothers, sons and husbands can struggle and feel unable to admit it. I agree with the hon. Member for Don Valley that it is in all our interests—it is in the interests of girls, mums, wives and sisters—that men and boys feel supported and fulfilled, so that they can have a true stake in the future and, in turn, become better role models for their sons. International Men’s Day gives us the chance to set time aside specifically to show that the male suicide and public health problems that we see need not happen. A much-needed light must be shone on the importance of men and boys asking for support. As we know to our cost, too often the lives of men and boys depend on it.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Davies. I know that you have done a lot of work in this area, having secured the first International Men’s Day debate in 2015.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) on securing the debate, and I thank him for championing this important issue and for his work with the APPG on issues affecting men and boys. He spoke powerfully about how suicide impacts on men and took us on the journey of Tommy’s life to talk about how he had been affected.
I am pleased to close this important debate for the Opposition and to have the opportunity to speak on International Men’s Day and mark the occasion in Parliament. I begin by thanking several hon. Members who have spoken. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about Northern Ireland and highlighted the slow diagnosis of prostate cancer. He also talked about loneliness in rural areas.
I thank the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller), who said that she wants all services to work for women and men. Both the hon. Member for Strangford and the right hon. Member for Basingstoke talked about how the use of language and perceptions sometimes have an impact on how men and women are treated, giving the example of the words “man up”.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) talked about images of fatherhood that are used in ways that we would not like to replicate, about how the mental load of parenting is often something that mothers do, and about equal parental leave.
The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) has done a lot of work as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on baby loss. I thank her for sharing her personal story again; she has been a trailblazer in this area. She talked about how the tragedy of baby loss has a long-standing impact on fathers as well as mothers, which is not always talked about. She also talked about making sure that there is adequate space for fathers at maternity wards.
As the name indicates, International Men’s Day is a worldwide celebration of the positive contribution that men bring to their families and communities. It is only fitting for me to thank all the incredible men who inspire and uplift others and promote a fair and inclusive society for all. I know that I have a number of male allies and that I would not be in this place today if they had not played a key role in supporting me. However, this annual event is also a crucial moment when the public come together to say that our men and boys face extreme challenges. These include the high rate of male suicide, shorter male life expectancy, falling educational standards among boys compared with that of girls, and so much more. We must also not neglect to mention the shocking inequalities that often leave minorities and the least privileged men in our society most vulnerable. Those are big challenges, but ones where progress can and must be made.
Figures on men’s mental health in the UK continue to show that suicide is the biggest cause of death in men under the age of 50. The Minister may remember that, in my first Health questions in my current Front-Bench role, I raised the issue of men aged 45 to 49, who are at most risk of suicide. However, we know that suicide affects the young as well.
Although it does not always come down to one factor, men can face specific life events that may increase their risk of suicide, including the breakdown of relationships, loneliness, unemployment, alcoholism and financial difficulties. Some of these contribute to the sad fact that the poorest in our society are more than twice as likely to die from suicide compared with the wealthiest. It is also important to mention that young black men are around three times more likely to present with suicidal risk. Research has found that gay, bisexual and trans men are even more prone to poor mental health, substance misuse and self-harm. I hope we can all agree that much needs to be done to support men who are struggling in crisis, because around three quarters of the deaths from suicide each year are men. As has been mentioned, men are less likely to seek help. If they do not seek help, they are less likely to get the help they need.
I want to commend a few charities doing fantastic work in this space by providing community support, especially for middle-aged men. They include James’ Place, the Men’s Sheds Association, Andy’s Man Club and Second Step’s Hope Project. I also want to mention Tommy’s, raised by the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth.
Although suicide is extremely complex, it is preventable. The Opposition believe that we must shift towards a system that focuses on prevention. The high rate of suicide is a haunting indictment of a lack of early intervention and support. For example, it is shocking that patients across England waited a total of 5.4 million hours in A&E while experiencing mental health crises last year. It is further shocking that 1.8 million people are on the NHS waiting list for specialist mental health treatment, and those numbers are growing only higher.
A Labour Government will treat mental health as seriously as physical health. Our mission will be to get the rate of suicide down. If we are privileged to get into Government, we will do that within our first term. Our plan will also include recruiting more than 8,500 more mental health professionals to cut waiting times for treatment. We will provide access to specialist support in every school and every community. We will open mental health hubs for young people. Labour has a plan and mission to build an NHS that is fit for the future and there for when people need it.
I turn to the many concerning disparities in men’s physical health. It is important to note that men have a shorter life expectancy, as has been mentioned, with one in five dying before the age of 65. We know that those deaths could be prevented by diet and lifestyle changes. Men are disproportionately affected by heart disease, and more men than women are overweight or obese.
As with mental health inequalities, when comparing life expectancy, there is a stark inequality between the most and least deprived areas of the country. In England’s most deprived postcodes, life expectancy for men is 73.5 years compared with 83.2 years in the least deprived areas. Despite that, men are still less inclined to seek help or advice from medical professionals, and therefore do not get the help they need. Without regular health check-ups, serious issues can go untreated for longer, and sometimes it is too late.
When instances of cancer are 21% higher for men than for women, we know how important early intervention can be. We also know about the well-recognised high rate of prostate cancer among black men. When the cancer is detected, patients must get the treatment they need, yet year after year, the Government have failed to meet the cancer waiting-time targets. Missing target times means missing lifesaving cancer treatment.
We need a strategy that is focused on early intervention and ensures that people receive the care and support they need. Instead, the Government have chosen to cut public health budgets substantially across the country. A Labour Government will invest in a bigger than ever expansion of the NHS and look to improve the cancer survival rates within five years by hitting all NHS cancer waiting times and early diagnosis targets, so that no patient waits longer than they should.
We will also tackle the stark health inequalities faced by disadvantaged groups. We have committed to a fit for the future fund to arm the NHS with state-of-the-art equipment and new technology to cut waiting times. That means doubling the number of CT and MRI scanners and getting people diagnosed earlier.
Of course, we cannot discuss men’s health without looking at boys’ performance in education. In basic terms, boys perform worse than girls by the end of primary school, with 70% of girls reaching the expected standard in maths. The disparity is even more acute among those from disadvantaged backgrounds, with disadvantaged white boys being the least likely group to go to university. Children only have one chance at education, and reducing those disparities with early intervention will make outcomes better.
I will conclude by repeating what I said at the start of my remarks. While we have spent most of today’s debate on the areas of most important concern, this occasion should also be a moment of celebration. It may be obvious to say this, but we all know that men—including you, Mr Davies—provide an invaluable contribution to our families, communities and society. This occasion should be one of appreciation as well as awareness, and I am glad to have had the opportunity to contribute to this debate.
The Minister for Women (Maria Caulfield)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. May I start by saying how pleased I am to participate in today’s debate? The theme of this year’s International Men’s Day is “zero male suicide”, which was touched on in many contributions today and is something that I am passionate about in my role as mental health Minister. I will touch on the groundbreaking work that we are introducing in that space, which is absolutely a priority area for this Government.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for securing the debate and for his tireless campaigning. He has held my feet to the fire to get men’s health recognised in a way that has not happened before, and pushed the Government to make this a priority area.
We are clear that more needs to be done to improve outcomes across the board for men, particularly in relation to health. That includes men and boys, whose place in society, as we have heard today, is integral to equality for all, because when men thrive, we all thrive. We all have fathers, brothers, friends, husbands, partners and colleagues. When we improve care for women, that impacts society, but that is equally true when we improve care for men. That is why, as part of International Men’s Day, we have made some significant announcements, which I will touch on.
My hon. Friend highlighted really well that improving outcomes for men is everybody’s business, and I absolutely agree. Whether in relation to economic prosperity for society, delivering education to the next generation, or even politics—or, of course, our own families—it is really important that we support men in every way, and International Men’s Day is an opportunity to highlight the issues that they face.
My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) spoke about the impact of supporting men, particularly around the loss of a child; my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley gave the example of “Tommy” and talked about how many Tommies there are across the country facing those very issues today; my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) touched on life expectancy differences for men; and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) touched on the issues facing veterans. Alongside the NHS, we are rolling out Op Courage for veterans, service leavers and reservists across England, and there is different support in different regions, but I will absolutely take up with the veterans Minister what we can do to help support a similar scheme in Northern Ireland.
The theme of this year’s International Men’s Day is zero male suicide. The latest data we have from the Office for National Statistics tells us that men account for around three quarters of all deaths by suicide. As many Members have said, that is the biggest cause of premature death in men under 35, but middle-aged men are also a significant risk group, and that is why they are a priority group in our recently published suicide prevention strategy. Over 4,500 men die by suicide in England alone every year. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley noted that is 13 deaths a day. Every suicide is a tragedy, and we know about the ripple effect that it has for family and friends. We have heard from campaigners what a devastating loss it can be.
Achieving zero male suicide is an ambitious target. In our suicide prevention strategy, we have addressed men as a priority group and addressed the many issues that they face, including alcohol addiction, financial pressures and relationship breakdown. Those are all key drivers of male suicide, so we want to tackle them and put better support systems in place.
Male suicide is everyone’s business. About two thirds of men who take their own lives are in contact with a frontline service, such as primary care, in the three months leading up to their suicide. That is why every Department—whether it is the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Ministry of Defence or the Ministry of Justice—has a role to play in our suicide prevention strategy. We are bringing those Departments together to make suicide everyone’s business, and we want to see a difference—a reduction—in two and a half years.
I do not have a huge amount of time, because my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley has to respond to the debate, but I want to touch on the announcement we made on International Men’s Day of £16 million funding for a new prostate cancer screening trial. On my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke’s point about life expectancy, we know that cancer is a significant driver of that. That is why we have rolled out our “man’s van” for lung cancer checks, to target men who have previously smoked and perhaps are not as good as they should be in coming forward to get checks done. That is enabling us to detect around 80% of lung cancers at stage 1, rather than at stage 3 and 4 as was the case previously. The prostate research will dramatically change outcomes for men. On the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford, we can look at that on a UK-wide basis, and we will have discussions with the devolved Administrations before that is rolled out in the spring.
We are appointing a men’s health ambassador—work will start on that soon—and we are launching a men’s health taskforce to join up all the dots. In a similar way to what we have done on the menopause taskforce, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley, as chair of the APPG, will be invited to that meeting. We will also improve the information on the NHS UK website, to make it easier for men to access help and support. Men often find it difficult to ask for help, but if it is available on the website, they can do that in the privacy of their own home and know that the information is reliable.
We are also now rolling out the HPV vaccine to boys. While we hope that vaccine will help us eradicate cervical cancer, we know that some male cancers—particularly oral cancers—are related to HPV, so rolling out the vaccine to boys will also have an impact on future cancers in men. We also have our major conditions strategy, which will look at things such as heart disease. There is a huge amount of work going on in this space.
I hope that in my whistle-stop tour—
Maria Caulfield
I will not, because my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley needs time to respond.
I hope that, in showcasing some of the work we are doing, I have demonstrated how seriously we take this issue. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend for his work in this space.
Nick Fletcher
I thank everybody who has contributed to this excellent debate, I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing it to take place, and I thank you, Mr Davies, for all the work you have done on this issue in the past. I thank the Men and Boys Coalition for organising International Men’s Day; the Men’s Health Forum for the leading work it does; the APPG team, Mark Brooks and Mike Bell; the wonderful charities that are doing great work, such as Andy’s Man Club, Men’s Sheds, Lads Need Dads, Prostate Cancer UK, and so many more.
Finally, seeing as though the debate was purposefully about suicide, I want to thank all the good men out there. It is sometimes tough being a boy or a man, but when you are feeling low and you think nobody cares, please, please, please reach out. Trust me: people do care. I care, we all in this room care, and most importantly, I know God cares too.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered International Men’s Day.
Energy Costs and Charges
(1 year, 1 month 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
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the cost of energy and energy charges.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank the Minister for her courtesy and consideration in our discussion yesterday.
Scots were told in 2014 that the benefit of being in the UK was the pooling and sharing that it afforded: assets and resources were pooled and then shared out across the nations, with the broad shoulders of the Union supposedly providing fairly for all. But how is that working out?
The King’s Speech had at its heart Scottish oil and gas, the extent of which was hidden from the Scottish people when it was discovered, as the McCrone report detailed. Ever since then its demise has been predicted and foretold. By 2014, it was apparently all gone, and Scotland left with only a burden. Now, Scottish oil is to save the UK economy. Scots can only look with envy at Norway, with its society and economy transformed by a resource the benefit of which has been denied us. Some nations discovered oil and saw the desert bloom; Scotland discovered oil and saw huge parts of her land turned into an industrial desert. Pooling and sharing? I don’t think so.
Now another natural bounty has blessed our land. Renewable energy is clean, infinite and what our world, not just our land, needs as part of a just transition from fossil fuels. Let us consider the scale of the bounty. Scotland produces one quarter of the UK’s renewable energy and has the potential to produce much, much more—offshore wind, as well as other forms of energy, including tidal, wave and onshore wind, ensures that. Scotland’s share of Europe’s offshore wind capacity has reduced because of improved technologies and opportunities in other countries, but Scotland is still the envy of other nations.
Naysayers who talk that bounty down are the same ones who predicted the demise of our oil. In 2009, only 27% of Scotland’s electricity came from renewables; by 2020, the equivalent of 97.4% of Scotland’s gross electricity consumption came from them. Three years on, the figure will be even greater, and that is before offshore wind, which is still minimal, comes on stream at scale.
The scale of what is coming from offshore wind is massive. That was confirmed by the then Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, which estimated that in 2021 Scotland exported south 35 TWh hours of electricity. That is to increase to 124 TWh by 2030. I struggled to understand what a terawatt was. For those similarly afflicted, let me clarify that 1 TW is 1 billion kW. Let us put that in context: the average Scottish household uses just over 3,200 kWh per annum. And let us remind ourselves that it is anticipated that by 2030 Scotland will be sending south 124 TWh, or 124 billion kWh. That is enough to power 37.6 million homes—the equivalent of powering Scotland’s 2.5 million homes almost 15 times over. That is year on year, and the figure is growing. That is the scale of Scotland’s resource.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate forward. He is making a compelling case for Scotland. May I suggest to the Minister that there is also a compelling case for Northern Ireland? We have not had the opportunity to advance to the same level as Scotland, but we wish to do so. Does the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) agree that if we are to move forward, there has to be a joint strategy for all of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, because we can and must all play our part? I envy what Scotland has done. We in Northern Ireland want to do the same.
Kenny MacAskill
Well, I prefer an independent strategy, similar to what Norway and Denmark are doing, but I concede that Northern Ireland is frequently ignored because so much of the gas grid is pan-Great Britain, rather than across the Irish sea.
Let us look at how Scotland’s resource is pooled and shared. I have detailed the 35 TWh rising to 124 TWh, but I have not explained that no payment is received for that resource. The energy is sent south, but there is no financial return to Scotland. Besides nothing being paid for it, there are now efforts to take it directly south with neither a bawbee nor a pretty please being given for it. Off south it is to go, and for no payment.
The Eastern HVDC—high voltage direct current sub-sea—transmission cables, also referred to as the Eastern Green Link projects, are the longest HVDC cables to be laid in the UK and will run from Peterhead to Redcar and from Torness to Drax. It is estimated that those links will take 5 TWh, or 5 billion kWh, of Scotland’s renewable energy source south, again with no payment. Additionally, the proposed Berwick Bank offshore wind farm in the firth of Forth will alone produce sufficient energy to supply more households than Scotland possesses, but a cable is proposed to be laid to take 40% of its energy directly south, again with no payment.
What about the sharing? Where is the benefit from the supposed broad shoulders of the Union? Where is the return for what we contribute? A recent question to the now Department for Energy Security and Net Zero asked whether consideration would be given to crediting domestic energy users in the localities where energy is produced and landed. After all, it is being produced onshore or offshore in Scotland, so we might have thought that some credit or benefit would accrue to Scotland, and it might even be cheaper there. But no—the answer was simply that it is a matter for Ofgem, which we know is a creature of statute and can act only within its set powers or as directed by Ministers. No such rules exist and no direction has been given. The energy is not only to go south for no payment, but no benefit is to accrue to Scotland from it.
There is talk of payments to those facing having pylons placed near them, but what about those who live in the land where the energy is being produced? Winter will soon be upon us. The weather is changing and the temperature is falling. The cold is being felt and the need to heat homes is increasing, but it is not simply heat but power that is required. Energy, and especially electricity, is needed not just to keep the cold at bay. It is required by the mother to wash her children’s clothes, keep them clean and uphold the standards she seeks to maintain. It is required by the parent seeking to power up an iPad or laptop to help their child’s education and advance their life chances. It is required by the worker charging their phone to allow them to find employment or do the additional hours that the Government want, or simply to keep body and soul together. More shamefully, it is also required by the sick, including those on dialysis and those recovering from cancer, whose immune systems are weakened and for whom warmth and power are a necessity for life, not a luxury for living.
Despite the fact that Scotland is energy rich, our people are fuel poor. Already more than a third of Scots have been assessed as being in fuel poverty. Even more shamefully, almost a quarter are in extreme fuel poverty.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for securing the debate. Households in rural areas have the highest fuel poverty rate—15.9% in 2022—and I am concerned that that will continue into 2024 if the Government do not act. Somerton and Frome has an estimated 13,060 homes off the gas grid that rely on alternative sources of fuel. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should accelerate the deployment of renewable power, provide more funding and remove the Government restrictions on solar and wind?
Kenny MacAskill
I certainly agree that there is a prejudice against those off the gas grid. It is not simply about those in rural areas, whether that means the hon. Lady’s constituents or my own in the lee of the Lammermuirs, but about those in urban areas—often urban deprived areas, in multi-storey flats, where gas is not available and the heating system is expensive.
The numbers I was given are historical, and they will only rise—if they have not already risen. After all, the statistics from the Scottish Ambulance Service for last winter’s hypothermic call-outs were shameful, but that is likely to be the baseline, and worse could follow. Energy prices may have fallen along with the energy price cap, but according to National Energy Action the average household is still paying £800 more for heat and power than before the energy crisis started, at a time when the cost of living crisis has subsumed the energy price crisis. Costs will be higher this year than last, when support was given to reduce bills. It is not just the big energy companies making money out of others’ misery; the Treasury made money though VAT on increased bills, which amounted to £1.1 billion in the UK and £96 million in Scotland. The cash is there. It is who has got it, or not got it, that is the issue.
Scotland is geographically further north and our climate is colder and damper than that in other parts of the UK, which makes access to heat and power even more essential. Winters can be cruel and the hardship in northern parts extreme. Let us examine the sharing—after all, we are told pooling and sharing is a benefit of the Union. When there is so much renewable energy being produced in Scotland, why are costs so high? Where is the social tariff alluded to by Government that even many suppliers support? It could be paid for out of general taxation—shared, that is. But no, the vulnerable are again left to struggle this winter.
Where is the credit, or reduced costs more generally, as I have mentioned? In my constituency, people can see the turbines turning or the towers rising from their doors, but they are unable to heat their homes. Moreover, why are costs greater in Scotland, the nation providing more energy than it has households? I wrote to Ofgem, asking them to detail the standing charges for electricity imposed on consumers in Scotland and in England. They have provided the answer for the costs imposed up until this December, but there is no sign of any variation coming. This will run and run, and so will the injustice—with the consultation not closing until January when winter has passed.
Scotland is divided into two zones: northern and southern, SSE and ScottishPower Energy Networks—that is, roughly the highlands and the lowlands. England is divided into north-west, southern and London. Ofgem’s answer disclosed that both Scottish zones were charged more, and often substantially more, than regions south of the border. That differential runs across all forms of charging, whether that is whether standard credit, direct debit or prepayment meter.
Let me detail the situation for those on prepayment meters. After all, they should be benefiting most from Scotland’s energy, which is being pooled. Their needs are invariably greatest and this bounty should be prioritised towards them, although similar benefits should apply equally across Scotland irrespective of payment method and could also be applied across the UK. Many are now counting their ability to access heat and power in pounds, if not pence. It is not 50p or £1 for the meter, but what they calculate that they can afford to use. It is why we have the weasel phrase of “self-disconnection”. That is not personal choice but imposed cruelty.
Let us look at standing charges for electricity. Including VAT, it is 69p a day in southern Scotland and 66p in northern Scotland, yet it is lower in England and only 46p in London. Per annum, it means that the standing charges for those on prepayment meters are, on average, £251.75 in southern Scotland, £241.92 in northern Scotland, yet only £166.10 in London. Those are not my figures—they are Ofgem’s.
We have seen the pooling and now we are seeing the sharing. We are giving, but not receiving. We produce the energy and our people, especially the poorest Scots, are charged more for it. The broad shoulders of the Union is the claim, but sleight of hand is the reality—as the bounty is taken, yet higher costs are imposed. As I begin to conclude on the costs of energy and energy charges—with the perversity of energy-rich Scotland and fuel-poor Scots—I make my first remarks to the Scottish Government. They have sold off ScotWind cheap and failed to stand up for Scotland. I am reminded of the words from the Proclaimers song “Cap in Hand”,
“We fight, when they ask us
We boast, then we cower
We beg
For a piece of
What’s already ours”.
As the song says,
“I can’t understand why we let someone else rule our land, Cap in Hand”.
It is time they stood up for our land on energy and electricity prices.
Meanwhile, I ask the Minister: if energy policy is reserved to the UK, where is the pooling and sharing? There is talk of payments to those having pylons nearby, but what about those where the energy is produced? Will there be a social tariff for the vulnerable this year? Ofgem is appointed by this Government and accountable to them. It is carrying out a welcome, if long overdue, review on standing charges. As I said, submissions do not close until late January—too late for this winter. Will the Minister direct Ofgem that standing charges should be abolished, as many suppliers argue? As National Energy Action states:
“How can it be right that someone who can’t afford any energy pays”
the same as
“someone in a mansion?”
It is an energy poll tax and equally unjust. Failing that, will the Minister ensure that standing charges are at least equalised across the UK, rather than seeing Scotland pool its energy, yet share higher charges? In summary, will she end the perversity of the land that produces the energy seeing its people and its poorest paying the most for that energy?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Amanda Solloway)
I thank the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) for his passionate and informative speech. I will say at the start that renewable energy clearly does not fit into my portfolio, but if I cannot answer on any points I will try to find the answers and follow up subsequently in writing.
First, the Government have been clear on the importance of protecting energy consumers, and I take my role as Minister for Energy Consumers and Affordability incredibly seriously. That is why I frequently meet energy suppliers and the regulator to remind them of their obligations and my expectations that they will do all they can to support customers, especially the most vulnerable, this winter and beyond. In response to the wholesale energy price challenge caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine last year, the Government acted swiftly to provide support to UK households and businesses, delivering almost £40 billion of energy bills support through different schemes from October 2022. The Government also continue to stand firmly behind energy consumers.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
Although I think our constituents are very grateful for the £40 billion of subsidy that was given across the cold winter last year, does the Minister agree that it would not have been necessary to spend that £40 billion of taxpayers’ money if we had carried on insulating homes at the rate that we had been up until the Liberal Democrats left government in 2015?
Amanda Solloway
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Of course, the fact is that we had a cost of living crisis mainly, as I have pointed out, because of Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. That was the situation we found ourselves in.
For households in fuel poverty, we have targeted support such as £150 directly off energy bills through the warm home discount, which last year we increased in value and extended to around 3 million households. We are also tackling the root problem through our energy efficiency schemes. We are looking at ways to make the warm home discount more flexible, and also to help respond to future increased pressures on consumers’ bills, and we continue to monitor energy bills and keep options under review.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Figures released by the utility regulator in Northern Ireland show that small and medium-sized enterprises in Northern Ireland are paying almost 10p per kW more than a typical EU price or that in the rest of the UK. Does the Minister agree that this places Northern Ireland businesses at a competitive disadvantage, particularly given the land border with the Republic of Ireland? Does she agree that further support measures need to be put in place, particularly for small to medium-sized businesses?
Amanda Solloway
I point out to the hon. Lady that I had a meeting yesterday with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and we were discussing these very particular issues. She has my assurance that those discussions are always mindful and at the top of my thoughts.
I also encourage hon. Members to make their constituents aware of the Government’s “It All Adds Up” campaign, which shows simple measures to save people money on their energy bills this winter. I know that the hon. Member for East Lothian has a particular interest in standing charges, as he discussed them with me yesterday. Standing charges are a matter for Ofgem.
I am pleased to share that last week Ofgem published a call for input on standing charges to look at how they are applied to energy bills and what alternatives could be considered. The standing charge is used to recover the costs required to provide vital energy company services, including providing and maintaining the wires, pipes and cables that deliver power to a customer’s door. If the standing charge were scrapped, as the hon. Member for East Lothian suggests, suppliers would still have to recover reasonable costs in other ways, which would mean charging a higher price for every unit of power used. That could have significant consequences for some categories of vulnerable customers: for example, those with high energy use due to medical equipment. That is one of the reasons we are working through the matter very carefully.
The standing charge can also vary from region to region, as has been pointed out, because of the differing costs associated with the transmission and distribution of supplying energy to a particular area. Geographical factors mean it costs more to run the local electricity distribution network in the north of Scotland than elsewhere. To help protect consumers in the north of Scotland from those costs, a Government cross-subsidy scheme provides an annual cross-subsidy of some £112 million to that area. The scheme is funded by electricity suppliers from across Great Britain and reduces the electricity distribution charge for a typical household in the north of Scotland by more than £60 a year. The cost-reflective approach means that Scottish consumers actually pay lower charges for the high-voltage transmission network than most consumers in England and Wales.
I am also aware that the hon. Member for East Lothian is interested in the benefits available for communities located near transmission network infrastructure, especially those in Scotland near offshore wind facilities. Offshore wind farm developers already provide a range of community benefit packages developed in consultation with local communities. For projects based in Scotland, developers follow the Scottish Government’s offshore energy good practice principles when creating a community benefit package. However, we want to ensure communities hosting transmission network infrastructure can benefit from supporting the delivery of cheaper, secure and low carbon energy for all of Great Britain. We have therefore consulted on proposals for community benefits. The consultation proposed to introduce voluntary guidance on the appropriate levels and forms of benefits to give communities the knowledge, power and flexibility to decide what benefits they want in consultation with the project developer. The consultation has now closed and we intend to publish a response as soon as we can.
I now want to come on to prepayment meters. Historically, customers on prepayment meters have paid higher standing charges than direct debit customers, reflecting the higher cost of serving those customers. The Government subsidises prepayment meter customers through the energy price guarantee to ensure they pay no more for their energy than direct debit customers. That seems to be the fair thing to do. The support is due to end at the end of March 2024 when the energy price guarantee ends, but Ofgem is due to announce shortly how it will create an enduring replacement for that scheme so that prepayment meter customers will have that unfair premium they were paying removed from their bills once and for all. Furthermore, the Government have worked with Ofgem and the industry to see that the rules extending protections with regard to prepayment meter installations for the most vulnerable consumers have come into effect.
I wish to close by reminding all hon. Members that they should encourage their constituents to contact their energy suppliers if they are concerned about their energy bills or their ability to pay. Energy suppliers have an obligation to their customers and Ofgem has also introduced further rules on customer services for this winter. Once again, I sincerely thank the hon. Member for East Lothian for securing this incredibly important debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Debt in Africa
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of debt in Africa.
I am extremely grateful to the House authorities for allowing me to secure this crucial debate on debt in Africa. I intend to cover the essential points that demand our urgent action. Today, I stand before this Chamber to confront a crisis of global magnitude—the escalating debt crisis in African countries. This is not merely an economic issue; it is a humanitarian challenge that demands our immediate and decisive response. The way in which we address this crisis does not just reflect on our policies but on the core values of Great Britain on the world stage. This moment is more than a test of financial acumen. It is a testament to our commitment to human dignity and global justice.
The decisions that we make in Parliament have far-reaching implications, shaping the futures of millions. In our interconnected world, the fortunes of African nations are intrinsically linked to our own. The Labour party has a proud history of leading international efforts on debt cancellation and relief for the world’s poorest. We remain committed to international development. I feel our response to this crisis will define our legacy in international solidarity and moral leadership.
The situation in Africa is increasingly alarming. Currently, more than half of the continent’s low-income developing countries are either in debt distress or on the brink of it. Debt distress refers to a situation in which a country is struggling to meet its debt obligations. That figure has worryingly doubled since 2015, and looking ahead to 2024 and 2025, those countries will face debt repayments six times higher than their total debt servicing in 2021. This drastic increase is a result of several factors, including the covid-19 pandemic and global tensions—such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Having liaised with the shadow Foreign Office Minister —my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) —I am cognisant of the fact that the Labour party has long advocated for debt relief as a cornerstone of its foreign policy. It steadfastly believes that the resources of low-income nations must be directed towards enhancing the lives of their citizens rather than being drained by unsustainable debt repayments. Our perspective must be rooted in the principle that investment in infrastructure and public services is crucial—not just for Britain’s societal stability, but equally for countries across Africa.
We need to see a model where an increase in GDP in those nations translates into significant investment in their own societies and infrastructure. That approach counters a current trend where a substantial portion of their national income is funnelled into servicing external debts, often with stringent conditions attached. We should envisage a world where economic growth in African countries is harnessed for their own development, fostering stronger, more resilient economies and societies. It is a vision where international co-operation and fair debt practices replace the cycle of debt and dependency, allowing those countries to realise their full potential on the global stage.
If I now come on to the middle east and north Africa region, the contrast between the accumulating wealth of the few and the deepening debt of the many is stark. The richest 0.05% in the region, with wealth above $5 million, saw their wealth surge by 75% from $1.6 trillion in 2019 to $3 trillion by the end of 2022. That boom in ultra wealth comes on the back of every country in the middle east and north Africa region sinking deeper into debt. For instance, in Tunisia, public debt increased from 43% of GDP in 2010 to 80% in 2021. In Egypt, it increased from 70% to 90%.
In the light of the escalating crisis, I ask the Minister: what steps are the Government taking to work with international partners to address the debt crisis that some African countries are facing, including debt held bilaterally, multilaterally and by private creditors? A World Bank report has highlighted a 35% increase in debt interest bills for the world’s poorest countries, further strained by the pandemic and increased food import prices. I ask the Minister to elucidate the UK Government’s response to that alarming development.
The G20 common framework for debt treatments was designed to deliver a sustainable solution to lower-income countries’ debt vulnerabilities, but it has failed. Only four countries have so far applied for debt treatment. Of those, only Chad has reached an agreement with both its private and bilateral creditors. That agreement appears inadequate, and has been criticised for its failure to reduce Chad’s debt burden and make it sustainable. Another example is Zambia. It defaulted in 2020, but has not yet reached a comprehensive restructuring agreement. The failure of the framework to deliver necessary relief is largely due to private creditors’ reluctance to participate in debt restructuring.
As a significant funder of debt relief initiatives and a supporter of international financial institutions, the UK has a role in ensuring that private creditors participate in restructurings. Some organisations, such as Debt Justice, argue that without firm action, English courts may end up enforcing repayment on behalf of private creditors who are exploiting official debt relief initiatives. Those organisations argue that the reluctance of private creditors to agree to restructuring creates a domino effect where other large creditors also refuse to accept a loss. It leads to a slow, uncertain process that consistently fails to deliver effective debt relief.
Given those challenges, I ask the Minister: what proactive steps are the UK Government taking to engage with, and ensure the participation of, private creditors in the debt relief process? How are the Government planning to address the issues raised by organisations such as Debt Justice to prevent debt relief initiatives from being used to pay off other debts rather than investing in the country? The United Kingdom, as a key player in global finance, has a crucial role in shaping frameworks that govern sovereign debt contracts. My challenge to the Government is: what initiatives are being pursued to reform the frameworks and facilitate effective debt restructuring?
I will turn to the impact on women and girls, who are being disproportionately affected by the debt crisis in Africa. I am aware that many hon. Members will elaborate further on this topic. The crisis leads to a reduced governmental investment in vital public services such as healthcare, education and social services. It also has an impact on supply-side factors, affecting those who work in health and social care. Globally, women account for 67% of the health and social care workforce. As we strive for a society where women are empowered globally, it is important that we look at the consequences of the debt crisis and its impact on egalitarianism and progressive values. Clearly, if Governments do not have the funds to support the basic needs of their populations, women and girls in particular will suffer. I call on our Government to outline how our international aid policies are addressing the unique impact of this crisis on women and girls in Africa.
Beyond that, there would be no good or relevant debate without mention of our effort to combat climate change. The debt burden significantly impedes African countries’ abilities to adapt to a changing climate and mitigate the impacts of the climate crisis. As we know, reaching net zero is of critical importance for us all, here and around the world, and I know that the Labour party is doing all it can to acknowledge the impact that the climate crisis is having on African nations.
Sustainable development and climate resilience are urgent needs, yet the debt crisis presents a formidable barrier. I implore the Government to detail collaborative efforts, aligning debt relief with climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies in the countries that I am discussing.
I will now address the long-term consequences of the African debt crisis and the serious threat that they pose to development, poverty alleviation and progress towards achieving the sustainable development goals. The SDGs are fundamental pillars of the international organisations that the UK works so diligently to support.
Low-income countries trapped in a debt doom loop cannot access the transformational finance that would allow them to escape from extreme poverty, fight climate change and meet their global goals. So, I urge the Government to share comprehensive strategies for confronting those profound challenges.
This critical moment demands international solidarity and decisive action. The UK, along with other leading economies, must spearhead the search for fair and sustainable solutions. Therefore, I ask the Minister the question: how are the Government working with international partners to develop strategies for long-term economic stability and social wellbeing in African countries?
I understand from my hon. Friend the shadow Minister that a Labour Government will restore Britain as a trusted and long-term partner to tackle the great challenges of our time, to promote the rules-based order and to deliver transformational change with communities around the globe. In seeking to address the challenge of debt burdens and to foster sustainable and resilient economies in Africa, I say to hon. Members here in Westminster Hall and indeed the whole House that now is the time not to cling to existing strategies but to leave no stone unturned.
In conclusion, the gravity of the African debt crisis necessitates collective action. We must look beyond temporary fixes and address the systemic issues that are at play. I am sure that a future Labour Government will embrace a new approach towards development that is based on respect and a genuine partnership with the global south, which involves supporting its plans to eliminate poverty, tackle climate change and reach the global goals. However, we cannot wait for that future Labour Government; we must act now. So, I implore the current UK Government to act now to address the debt crisis facing African nations.
Martin Vickers (in the Chair)
I intend to call the Front-Bench spokesmen from 3.25 pm onwards. I have four other Members indicating that they wish to speak, so I would be grateful if they could bear that instruction in mind.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on securing this very important debate and on such a well-informed and impassioned speech, which outlined the absolute reason for urgent action on debt cancellation.
I start my contribution by declaring an interest. Before being elected to this place, I was a Jubilee 2000 campaigner back in the 1990s, along with others, and I was then a trustee for the Jubilee Debt Campaign, which is now Debt Justice. As a campaigner for Christian Aid, then for Methodist aid and then for the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development or CAFOD, I led ordinary people in protests up and down the country. Those people all absolutely understood the stranglehold that debt repayments have over so many Governments that would otherwise use that money to educate girls, invest in clean water and sanitation, tackle climate change, and invest in infrastructure such as roads to increase trade and boost the economy.
Together, across the country, we wrote to MPs. Yes, I used to be one of those people who wrote to MPs, sending in postcards. We held protests in our towns and villages, and made endless amounts of red chains to symbolise the need to be free of unjust chains of debt. In 1998, 100,000 people circled Birmingham to make a human red chain to influence the G8 that was meeting there. In 2001, we went to Genoa. I remember coachload after coachload of all ages, sometimes very elderly. There were parishioners, people from faith groups across the country, going to Genoa for the G8, because they were so determined to make the change. In 2005, we marched through Edinburgh, and celebrated when the previous Labour Government made huge inroads, taking the lead in brokering a deal that cancelled £4 billion of debt of the world’s poorest countries.
Jubilee 2000 was a huge joint global campaign that led ultimately to the cancellation of more than £100 billion of debt owed by 35 of the world’s poorest countries. I saw the difference it made on the ground. Having campaigned for the reduction under the IMF’s heavily indebted poor countries initiative, I was delighted to see a teachers’ house in a village in Zambia bearing the huge letters HIPC. Enabled by debt-reduction payments, that house provided teachers for a whole generation, boosting opportunities and the economy, all from debt reduction.
But where are we now? There simply has not been the same UK leadership on this since 2010. That has been a glaring missed opportunity, which undermines any warm words the Minister might be about to say on leading on sustainable development goals. I welcome the Select Committee on International Development report on debt relief in low-income countries, published in March this year, but I do not welcome as much the lukewarm response from the Government.
I also welcome the inclusion of debt in many places in the international White Paper, published yesterday, and agree with its assessment that high and rising debt vulnerability poses a significant development challenge. There needs to be more focus on debt reduction for the world’s most fragile and conflict-risk states. That is vitally linked to climate finance but, again, will there really be the significant action we need to see following that White Paper?
Lower-income countries have been facing increasingly high debt over recent years, with external debt payments increasing by 150% between 2011 and 2023. They have now reached their highest levels in 25 years. There are currently 54 countries in debt crisis, including many in Africa, such as Zambia, Ghana, Mozambique and Kenya. As the thousands of people from across the country who took action in the Jubilee 2000 campaign on debt know, those current unsustainable debt levels have a serious impact on the lives of millions of people across the continent, and on any chance of achieving the sustainable development goals.
A reported 72% of the sustainable development goals to achieve poverty eradication are off track. According to the UN, they are “woefully off track”, dangerously so. The increasing amount of unsustainable debt is one of the major reasons for that. Many countries were forced to reduce public spending during the pandemic, to keep up with debt payments. That is spending on education, health, water and sanitation. Lower-income countries spend five times more on debt repayment than on addressing the climate crisis.
Countries have had no choice but to turn to fossil fuels to generate the funds needed to meet their colossal debt repayments. I will be at COP28 in a few weeks’ time with a delegation of MPs, and I will make this case to those attending from across the globe. I look to the Government to make the same case and the links. I hope the Minister will say something about the link between debt cancellation and climate finance, which is essential.
The Government could show global leadership and rectify flaws, especially in the common framework agreed by the G20. Four countries have now applied to the common framework, but none has received any debt cancellation so far. Zambia applied in February, but there is a gap of a mechanism to induce private creditors to accept the same terms as other creditors, which leads to disastrous impasses; it is a frozen system. Zambia has £6.3 billion of debt and, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Slough, is in that debt doom loop. Yet the UK is in a unique position to strengthen the legal framework to ensure the participation of private creditors, as 90% of the bonds issued by countries eligible for the common framework are governed by English law. The UK could pass legislation to incentivise private creditors to take part in debt relief. Two possible legislative options are to replicate the Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Act 2010 and to extend UK corporate law on debt restructuring so Governments can restructure their debts in a similar way to companies. There are ways to fix the issue, but as it is currently set up, it just will not be the answer to debt cancellation that it should be.
I end by asking the Government and the Minister to take the action needed to end the debt crisis. Specifically, will the Minister commit to consulting on new legislation to compel private creditors to participate in debt relief to tackle the debt crisis in lower-income countries?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers, and to speak in today’s debate. I thank the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) for leading the debate. We are all here because we have a passion for foreign affairs, and it is great to support him today and I congratulate him on how he has set the scene. It is also a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for the second time in recent days, as she spoke before me in the COP28 debate last Thursday. I recognise that she has a deep interest and passion, shown through her work with Christian Aid, CAFOD and WaterAid and some of her other projects. I am pleased to follow her in particular because with all that depth of knowledge comes a contribution that makes the debate even more salient and interesting for us. I thank her for that as well.
There is no doubt that the covid pandemic had a profoundly negative impact on Africa’s sovereign debt situation. It has been stated that some 22 countries are either in debt distress or at high risk. That has meant that African Governments are struggling more to pay the debt incurred. Countries such as Mozambique and Zimbabwe were already in debt—and indeed, Malawi. The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), who will shortly speak for the SNP, has over the years that I have known him always spoken about Malawi and the strong relationships that he and his constituency have with that country. Those things are important when we discuss the matters under consideration today.
Research has shown that as of August 2022, countries in Africa owed the UK a total of £2,758 million, which accounts for 56% of all debts owed to the UK, with Sudan’s the highest. It is important to note that debt is not necessarily a bad thing in itself and can help with economic development. I say that because the increase in debt in the early 2000s was accompanied by a higher level of economic development in Africa. There is a history and I say that because I want to have it on record that it is not all doom and gloom. If we look back through history, we will see that countries were able to address the debt issue and grow accordingly. Sometimes, we have a duty to try and encourage those countries and work with them to get them out of a bad patch.
I was talking to the hon. Member for Glasgow North, and as I sat listening to the hon. Member for Slough’s contribution, I was reminded of the story in Matthew 25 where the master travels into a far-off country. Mr Vickers, you will know the story and probably everybody in the Chamber will know it. The master gives his three servants five talents, two talents and one talent. He comes back and the guy who had the five talents has made them into 10, the guy who had two has made them into four and we know the story of the one who did not invest his money and work hard.
The reason why I tell the story is because that is the Africa of the 2000s. Today, I believe that we in the western world have a duty to try to get them out of these bad times, to give them the advice and assistance they need, and to give them experience. We cannot just —I say this genuinely—pursue somebody and say, “We must get your debt” because that will lead to more debt for them and even higher levels of poverty, so I use the biblical story of Matthew 25 to illustrate in a small way, and hopefully in a strong way, what it means to help others.
According to the World Bank’s debt sustainability analysis, nine African countries were in debt distress and unable to fulfil their repayment requirements as of the end of September 2023. A further 15 African countries were at high risk of debt distress, with another 14 at moderate risk. If it were up to me—I am not the person to do it, so I look to the Minister and the Government to take on this task—I would speak to each of those countries individually. There has to be a two-way dialogue, whereby we can discuss how we manage debt repayments and help countries to grow at the same time.
None of us is a stranger to the impact that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has had on our ability to afford things and get our debt under control. I have constituents —indeed, I expect all Members do—who are still coping with the effects and struggling to regain control of their finances, especially when it comes to paying for gas, oil and electricity. The conflict between Russia and Ukraine is causing a rise in the price of commodities, particularly food and gas, and the war is also disrupting food supply chains, which especially affects people in Africa.
Between 2010 and 2021, external debt servicing payments in Africa more than quadrupled, growing at over 60 times the pace of average fiscal revenues. In discussing how much debt, and by what rate, it should be paid back, we must show compassion for a country’s social and financial situation. There has to be realism about how much money can be paid back and the rate of repayment. Regardless of whether that means restructuring loans or helping them to balance or grow their economy, we should be trying to do it. For example, there must be repayment options for countries with negative human rights and social considerations.
Strengthening debt management policies to deal with repayment issues through Governments is one of the best ways to enable the stable payback of debts. If paying back will ultimately plunge a state into further demise and poverty, I do not believe that is the right way to do it. We have to find a better solution. I am not just saying that for the sake of it; if we want to recoup debts, we have to work with countries to make that happen.
The economic consequences of the covid-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have undermined the ability of many African nations to service their sovereign debt. Consideration must be given to that, to human rights abuses and to a nation’s ability to pay back its debt. I look forward to the Minister’s comments, and we as a nation should continue to be supportive to all those struggling, especially through aid. I know the Minister is compassionate and understands what we are asking for, but when it comes to dealing with the debt of African nations and others, there has to be a sense of realism and real compassion in order to try to get them out the other side. By doing so, we will help them contribute to their future. At the end of the day, it is surely about their future. Let us get it right.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on securing this important debate. It could not have come at a more timely moment.
The debt that Africa owes is equivalent to something like 24% of its gross domestic product. As of 2022, Africa’s debt burden was around $1.8 trillion. As an absolute number, that does not appear as high as some—Germany’s debt is larger—but compared with the living standards and available wealth of the people and their Governments, it is crippling. That debt has been placed on the backs of African nations as a legacy of centuries of colonialism and exploitation—exploitation that continues today, as western corporations make billions every year from the natural resources of the continent, particularly in the form of mineral extraction.
To demonstrate the extent to which western mineral exploitation damages Africa, out of all African nations, only Botswana’s Government retain ownership and control of their own country’s considerable mineral wealth. As a result, it has by far the lowest national debt as a percentage of its gross domestic product—barely a quarter of neighbouring South Africa’s, and even its closest rivals have double its debt. Botswana has stated that its aim in retaining control of its mineral resources is to maximise the economic benefit for its people—and it works.
For centuries, Africa was pillaged of its wealth: timber, oil, diamonds, and, above all, its people. Western nations grew rich on the backs of the slaves that they took and the exploitation of those who remained in Africa, and then from their colonisation of those same nations. Rich countries and their corporations continue to steal by deceit, by intimidation, and by fomenting unrest and division, particularly to obtain the rare earth minerals that drive our technological society and bloat the bank accounts of the companies that make and use that technology.
Africa is not poor; the west has stolen its wealth and is still doing so today. Aid and loans to Africa, along with personal remittances from Africans working abroad, are worth far less than what is taken out of Africa. That difference is at least $40 billion annually, making aid and loans little more than camouflage for neo-colonial exploitation. That piles debt on to the people of Africa, which drains away their ability to build themselves better economies and a better standard of living. And, as usual, the money going out of Africa is going into corporate profits, while the cost of loans and aid is borne by taxpayers.
The reparations that the UK and other nations owe to the people of Africa—and the other countries exploited for so long—is a huge debt, both moral and financial. Cancelling Africa’s debt would be one small step towards repaying what was stolen and making restitutions for centuries of damage done. Yet Governments will not acknowledge the debt that they owe to Africa, let alone put measures in place to do something about it or to claw back some of the obscene corporate and personal fortunes dug out of Africa and its people. It is high time that that situation changed.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Vickers. I was so excited at the prospect of speaking in front of you that—
Tony Lloyd
Thank you. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on introducing this debate. It is timely. I think we all know that the crisis in Africa is real. We—as a world, not simply as a country—need now to address that. I would like to start quite a long time ago, rather like my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson). When we look back over the history of the debate around indebtedness—to “break the chains” and all those phrases that used to trip off our tongues about the need for change—I believed that the world would be very different.
I want to relate something from around 30 years ago. I went to the funeral of a very young child in Mozambique. The baby died because the mother simply could not feed that baby. It was shocking at the time to see a baby denied the nutrition that I would expect for my own grandchildren, for my constituents and for our world. At the time, I would have said, “It will change.” I would have said that we would move down the path of debt relief. Had we had this debate 30 years ago—we probably did have it—we would have been told, “Don’t worry: with a combination of looking carefully and kindly at debt management, at the transmission of technical aid and assistance and at the growth of trade, the world will be very different.”
Well, the world is very different: it is worse for those in Africa. In practical terms, the little baby from all those years back, whom I talked about, is now replicated by many others. Debt is an enslavement of the generation to come, and that is, of itself, something that we ought to rail against. How can a child be born into the enslavement that debt causes? My hon Friends have given different accounts of debt, and we can probably argue about the figures. The hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) used a particular figure, but the figure I have about the GDP-to-debt ratio is that debt will now be something of the order of 60% of GDP across sub-Saharan Africa. Whether that is exactly right or wrong almost does not matter. It matters in general terms—we can talk trillions or billions of dollars or pounds—but debt impinges on the quality, the reality and the possibility of life of millions of people across the African continent. It is at the human level that debt matters.
If we look at the battle against poverty, the battle against poor health, the battle for education, the battle to create the health services and the battle around climate change, we are losing those battles. We are losing them in this generation—at the moment—and we have to change. We have to change in a particular way, because, at some point, we have to make our minds up and say whether we are prepared to create a very different relationship: the indebted no longer as clients of those who hold the debt but, instead, as partners. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough made some very profound points about this.
If we are not a partner to African nations and the people of Africa, we lose battles such as climate change, which is our common battle together. It would be remarkable for Africans to know that we are losing it together, because they make so little contribution to the problems that we have all caused around climate change. African nations as a whole are insignificant at the moment, although an Africa of the future, if not helped through transition to those climate change-consistent policies, will potentially be a major producer of greenhouse gases. We should therefore be partners, but if we are going to be partners, we have to be meaningful about what debt really means.
Those who were in the Chamber earlier heard the international development Minister, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) make a very good series of statements on the White Paper. I welcome that White Paper, but there is a challenge that the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan) has to take back to the Prime Minister and others. It is not enough to print the words in the White Paper; we need the political will to translate that into national action in the UK and international action. On national action in the UK, when I looked into our history of debt relief, the only figures I could come up with showed that the UK’s spending on debt over the last 10 years or so has been £44 million. That is absolutely insignificant against the scale of the problem. We have to do more by way of debt forgiveness, but not simply on our own. We have to be a part of that global coalition that challenges debt and looks at debt restructuring in a real and rational way.
We have to look, for example, at Zambia and the number of people who have evidenced the situation there. Zambia could not come to an agreement, partly because it was the private debtholders who caused the crisis there. Zambia then offered to pay them some 73 cents on the dollar, compared with 55 cents on the dollar for intergovernmental loans. That was a massively bigger rate of return for the private investors, even though they charged massively higher interest rates on their debt. Bear in the mind that the reason for charging higher interest rates is relevant to risk. They put the risk premium in, but having put the risk premium in, they then wanted to be paid a superabundant return on their investment. The reason that failed is that it was inconsistent with the G20 common framework, which said that there had to be a rough equivalence between Government and private debtholders. That is right; there should be that kind of equivalence. We have to be in this together.
A challenge for the Minister is this: are this Government prepared? As a lot of that debt is operated through UK law, it is in our capacity to ensure that that debt, which is factored through the City of London and so on, is managed in a way that says to private debtholders that they have to pay their fair share of debt forgiveness and debt relief, if we are genuinely going to restructure on these issues.
We can make a change. I may not have been able to give hope to the mother of the child I talked about before, as I do not think I would have been so bold as even to say to her that something could be better at that stage of her life. Perhaps I would have said to other people that the world can change, and it can change for the better. Let us ensure that we can do it in this generation. Let us ensure that now is the time.
This has to be a political priority, and I believe my party will take this on board. I hope that in a year’s time or thereabouts we will be sat around having this debate again, and we will be sat on different sides of this little horseshoe. It will be about political will. As I have said to the Minister, the challenge is whether the political will is there from the Prime Minister. Is there the political will to say that the decision to cut the development assistance in the way this nation did took us in the wrong direction? Is the political will there to raise those very powerful points, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East did, about the history of post-colonial Africa?
Even now, we subsidise, for example, Rwanda and Uganda in terms of their education and health service. That is the right thing to do. In turn, however, the armies of those two countries have been part of the exploitation of the mineral wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which of course is then shipped over to the west, where it is paid not at a value-added rate, but at the market rate. Who controls the market? It is not the producers of those rare earth minerals that we take from African soil.
We need to think not simply about debt relief, but about the bigger picture and how we alter the terms and conditions of trade and exploitation, which our system is part of. I do not say that in any sense of whipping myself; I say it rationally, because if we are going to make that change, we have to think about that.
I say to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that I have always been puzzled by the parable of the stewards. I always felt it was little unkind on the perhaps slightly less competent steward with his one talent. I never quite understood why he should be treated so badly, because clearly there was a steward who thought he was doing the best—he buried the talent in the ground, and that talent did not lose any value in that process.
Tony Lloyd
I ask the hon. Gentleman to just let me finish. He thought he was being a good steward. What he lacked was the technical awareness that would have allowed him to invest in whatever—perhaps rare earths or, in those days, fine wine for weddings. In that sense, if we are going to face the challenges together, we have to take that stewardship process. Technical assistance matters enormously.
Jim Shannon
I am not smarter than anyone else, biblically, physically or emotionally. I think the story of the parable is about those who use their talents wisely, and the steward who received five talents used them wisely. The comparison I made was with the economic decisions made by African countries back in 2000. When they did it wisely, their economies grew. Use talents wisely—the five and the two—and the economy will grow. Those who do not use their talents and hide them are not being fair to themselves, their families, or indeed their countries. The point I am trying to make, very gently, is that they could do better.
Tony Lloyd
I agree. Perhaps I should not have picked up on the parable. It is just that I do rail a little bit against the prosperity gospel. It is not my style of Christianity. Compassion is part of what we should be about, and it has to be a part of what we are talking about here today.
I will finish with this. Part of that compassion is that we need to restructure debt and increase trade, but we also need to recognise the capacity to ensure that the steward with the single talent really did need assistance to do the things that the hon. Member for Strangford is talking about, to invest wisely. We need to invest in education and in the technologies that can allow us to challenge climate change in Africa as well as here in the UK, in Europe, in China, and even possibly in the post-Trumpian United States of America—who knows? We have to work together, because in the end this is not about simply asking us all to be kind to each other. It is about a common interest of what kind of world we want to live in. Yes, this is a tremendously important debate we are having today. I hope the Minister will begin to respond in a positive way to the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough and others have raised.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on securing what I think has been a very thoughtful and surprisingly theological debate, at a very timely moment in the context of the UK Government publishing their new White Paper. That White Paper presents a very welcome change of tone and perspective on issues of global development. I hope that the language of aid being a giant cash machine in the sky is consigned to the past, and that we can focus on moving forward in a much more constructive and consensual tone. I think that that has been reflected in the debate today.
The same is true of the memories of the Jubilee Debt Campaign, which of course had very deep theological roots of its own, given the biblical concept of a jubilee. I might say again at the end that this is a concept that we perhaps need to come back to. Like the hon. Members for Putney (Fleur Anderson) and for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), I worked with very committed campaigners, some of whom are now constituents, who wrote to whoever their MP was back in the day and who continue to write to me all these years later, because they are so passionate and so motivated. It was such an effective campaign in so many different ways. It went from being Jubilee 2000 to the Jubilee Debt Campaign, and it is now known, as we have heard, as Debt Justice. That is part of a wider movement for a fair economy, for corporate justice, and for climate justice.
It is interesting that whenever the word “justice” is used in the White Paper, it is in the technical, juridical sense relating to a country’s justice systems, rather than in the sense of striving for just, equitable and more peaceful solutions to the challenges that face the modern world. As everybody has said, debt is now one of those biggest challenges. Africa’s debt is at its highest level in over a decade. That is frustrating and disappointing, given all the work and effort that went into setting up the mechanisms for Jubilee 2000 and the Make Poverty History campaign. Progress and huge strides were made for a variety of reasons. Some of those were beyond individual control—such as the likes of the pandemic—but some were very much within our control, such as the way in which multilateral organisations have continued to work, avoidable conflict and, of course, the impact of climate change and the need to respond so quickly, leverage finance and look around to wherever that finance can come from.
That has led to a change in the structure and composition of the debt. Previously, the debt was owed to official creditors, high-income countries and multilateral lenders like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, but now we see China holding a huge proportion of that debt and private creditors making up an increasingly large proportion, as well. At the moment, the debt is not subject to the kinds of structures that were put in place around the millennium, and the effect of that is that the cost of servicing the debt has also increased, and so developing countries in sub-Saharan Africa paid about $84 billion simply in debt servicing in 2021, with countries in the middle east and north Africa paying a further $45 billion. We have heard the expression “doom loop” on a number of occasions, from a number of Members, because that just builds and compounds and then has all the effects that a number of Members spoke of so powerfully, affecting the infrastructures of the countries.
The hon. Member for Slough and I were both in Malawi this year—I refer to our entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—with the all-party parliamentary group on malaria and neglected tropical diseases. Malawi is one of those 21 African countries we heard about that are in, or at high risk of, debt distress. Its external debt effectively tripled between 2009 and 2021, and we can see the impact of that simply in the country’s inability to get moving; there is a need for infrastructure, and it is simply unable to leverage the resources.
As the hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) so powerfully said, we absolutely want countries to be able to realise the true potential of their riches. Africa is not a poor continent, and African countries are not poor; they are rich in resources and human potential, and yet that potential is not properly realised because they are not in a position to properly and fairly leverage that and they are tied to debt, especially unfair debt. As the hon. Member for Rochdale said, there is this idea of super-abundant extraction of resources through punitive interest rates and unfair deals, which simply compounds that cycle. The DRC should be the richest country in the world. Almost every single person in this Chamber walks around with a little piece of the DRC in our pocket, and yet it is one of the poorest countries in the world and, like so many other countries, it is saddled with debt.
We need fair trade, fair taxation, and a just and sustainable use of the continent’s resources. The responses that have been put forward so far clearly are proving to be inadequate. The analysis has shown that different mechanisms, such as the debt service suspension initiative that was set up in 2020 as a result of the pandemic, have not been fully utilised. The countries that applied to that scheme had an average of just 23% of their debts suspended. The remaining mechanism beyond the DSSI announced in 2020—the common framework for debt treatments—is also incredibly slow; only four countries have so far applied, and none of them has effectively seen any of its debt being cancelled.
Crucial to all of this, as we have heard from some of the contributions, is the lack of co-operation from private sector creditors, both blocking the progress of the countries that are applying and discouraging other countries from applying for those relief processes in the first place. Responsibility has to fall to the UK Government for a large part of this. There has to be multilateral initiative, and there have to be easier and fairer ways of accessing, financing and writing off or restructuring debt; but getting to the heart of this issue of how private companies are able to extract and apply debt is absolutely crucial. Even though the UK Government are not a massive creditor these days, some 90% of the bonds issued by countries eligible for these debt reliefs are governed by English law. The Government say in the White Paper that they want to pioneer new approaches to debt, so they should listen carefully to the proposals being put forward.
I was saying to a colleague earlier today that it is unlikely that legislation will come out of the White Paper, as it is really a statement of Government policy, but here we are in Westminster Hall a couple of hours later talking about firm proposals for legislation on the back of it, put forward by the Debt Justice campaign—the hon. Member for Putney spoke about those. They would have a number of practical effects, including easing the debt restructuring process by undermining the ability of minority creditors to hold out on agreements, easing financial settlements for debtor Governments in distress, increasing the speed of restructuring processes, reducing uncertainty for debtor countries and creditors, enabling borrowing Governments to access capital markets more quickly, and addressing the power imbalance between the single debtor country and often a large number of creditors.
It would be interesting and useful to hear the Minister commit at the very least to consult on what such legislation might look like and speak about how it could be taken forward practically. Of course, it would have to be taken forward in parallel, because there would not be much point in the UK legislating if all the debts transfer to another jurisdiction—New York is the other very popular area for binding these kinds of contracts. It would have to be an international initiative.
I wonder whether we need to think in the even longer term. The White Paper is supposed to take us to the sustainable development goals in 2030. The year 2000 was a jubilee year, which is a biblical concept—debts were written off and everybody had a fresh start—and Pope Francis has designated 2025 as a holy year of jubilee for the Catholic Church, but perhaps we need to think in the longer term about where we will be in the middle of the century. Will we continue in this doom loop, or will we seize the opportunity now to make progress towards the sustainable development goals and go beyond them to create a fairer, more just and more equitable system? Tackling pervasive debt absolutely has to be a part of that. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and others said—this is in the Debt Justice campaign material—people struggle with huge amounts of debt in the United Kingdom and other western countries. As the hon. Member for Leicester East said, we effectively end up in hock to incredibly powerful companies, and that affects the dignity of countries as a whole and the dignity and power of individuals.
If we do not rise to the challenge, the other goals—everything else in the White Paper and the sustainable development goals—will remain exactly that: goals and targets. They will never actually be realised because the money will continue to spiral and line the pockets of people who already have more than enough at the expense of people who do not even have enough to get by.
That is the challenge before us. This has been an incredibly thoughtful and useful debate, and I hope, in the new spirit of consensus that the Government have set today with the publication of the White Paper, that the Minister and the Labour spokesperson will respond appropriately, and that we can find just and sustainable solutions to the challenge of debt in Africa.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I sincerely thank my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) for securing the debate. His record of standing up for people affected by crises in Africa and around the world speaks for itself—it is absolutely exemplary. He and I agree that working with African countries to address their concerns, challenges and opportunities is very important. As we know, Africa’s potential is massive. It has young, dynamic, talented, fast-growing populations, but African economies are being held back by climate heating, disasters, conflict and debt.
Debt sustainability is a terribly complex issue once we get into the details, but on one level it is very simple: Governments hamstrung by debt burdens cannot meet their people’s needs or aspirations. Currently, uncertainty around debt is driving away investment and undermining many African countries’ economic growth and climate progress. The average debt ratio in sub-Saharan Africa has nearly doubled over the past decade, going from 30% of GDP in 2013 to almost 60% last year. The cost of debt has become far more expensive, and even before recent crises, it was far higher than for higher-income countries.
Many countries are recovering from the economic damage wreaked by covid, climate shocks and conflicts, including Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, so it is not surprising that 20 African countries are either in debt distress or at high risk of it. We have already seen the attempts of four African states to manage huge debts thwarted by the slow and cumbersome common framework process.
Ghana, for example—one of our key partners in Africa—is cut off from international markets while debt negotiations go on and on. Ghana cannot reap the full rewards of its resources and enormous human potential, and we in the UK cannot access the mutual benefits that would flow from its growth. The Bridgetown initiative, the Nairobi declaration and key figures at the International Monetary Fund are calling on us to speed up debt relief talks and make the global debt system fairer and more efficient.
I am pleased to see the Government’s international development White Paper recognise the need to improve global debt processes, but there are obviously huge questions about the Government’s commitment to take the necessary steps if we are actually going to do that. As we know, one of the problems with the common framework is that a small number of private creditors can hold up the entire process by refusing to take part in restructuring, in the hope of securing a higher return than others. We know that many of those private creditors operate under English law, because of the strength of the City of London in global finance. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister whether her Government have changed their position since May.
Will the Minister review the benefits and risks of legislating to stop creditors from acting in bad faith and holding up negotiations? Does she agree that the Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Act 2010 did not have the negative unintended consequences that some feared it would? When the international development White Paper was being developed, why did the Government not see the cross-party consensus behind that Act as a starting point to build on over the coming years? Surely recognising the UK’s history of action and outsized role in private sovereign debt could strengthen our influence and credibility at the G20 and other international fora. It could enable us to work better with the United States, opening up opportunities for co-ordinated reform. It could supplement our efforts to improve multilateral systems and debt transparency.
In her response, I can guess the Minister might talk about the good work being done to roll out climate resilient debt clauses, but does she recognise that those clauses will not be enough on their own? It is not only countries in the grip of an extreme weather event, or a health disaster, that will need fiscal space. In many African countries, the huge swings in global interest rates and commodity prices are equally relevant.
The international development White Paper states that the Government will support suspensions of debt payments while negotiations are ongoing, and, “where relevant”. I would be grateful if the Minister said more about what the Government mean by “where relevant”, and what they are doing about bringing back consensus on debt service repayment suspensions at the G20. Does she agree that suspensions can speed up negotiations, which is surely in all our interests?
The Minister knows that calls have been made for the UK to use our influence at the IMF to produce a definition of unsustainable debt for the common framework. In May, her Government rejected those calls when the International Development Committee recommended action. Perhaps she could say a little about what she is doing to make the definition of unsustainable debt clearer and how she is helping to make progress more predictable.
I know that the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), understands the need for action, from his very welcome comments about vulture funds over the past months. The international development White Paper mentions support for voluntary collective action clauses and majority voting provisions. Does the Minister here today agree that those have not fully solved the problems caused by vulture funds?
When I speak to African ambassadors, Ministers, business leaders and civil society groups, they are clear about what they want from the UK: partnership, not patronage. I heard the same message last week in Kenya. When we talk about our collaboration with African countries, it is not just about development assistance or private investment—as the Minister knows, we would love to see more of both. It is equally about structural reform and smart collaboration with our partners. For example, I know that the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, has recently been working hard on the global food security summit. I gently say that if we did more to unblock the common framework process, that would free up funds for African countries to spend on their food security agendas.
We all recognise the role of humanitarian aid. It saves lives in massive numbers and is absolutely essential, but we know that supporting resilient food systems that prevent hunger and malnutrition would be a far better way to proceed. At very little cost to ourselves, we could take steps to make sure that the processes we influence, such as the global sovereign debt system, really do provide fair benefits to us and to the countries that use them. We recognise that these issues are complex and sometimes genuinely difficult, but none of us wants to undermine the basis for future private bilateral and multilateral investment in African countries. The mutual benefits and the need for such investments are huge. However, we need to seriously consider the argument that greater confidence in comparability of treatment between private and official creditors will not undermine investment; instead, it could enable investment by creating more transparency and certainty.
These debates are technical, but they are also really important for hundreds of millions of people. It took three very long years after Zambia’s default for a debt restructuring even to be agreed in principle. Even worse, the process is far from over. The issue of comparability of treatment between official creditors and bondholders is a core barrier holding Zambia back.
Doing our bit to solve the debt crisis is essential to being a good partner to our friends. It affects the UK’s long-term interests. Let me stick with Zambia for a moment: we are talking about a country that is likely to play a massive role in the global green energy transition through its wealth in copper and other critical minerals. By being a positive partner to Zambia, we can demonstrate the serious offer we have to growing countries across Africa and support progress on security, democracy and human rights in the wider southern and central Africa regions.
We have already seen Zambian leadership on these issues, through their role in election monitoring in Zimbabwe, for example. That is the positive side—opportunities can be seized. However, there is a negative side, too, because the debt crisis is one of the background factors that enables insecurity to grow in many African countries. Where Governments cannot provide services to their populations, people are left alienated and hopeless. We know that insurgencies, coups and armed groups thrive where trust and hope has vanished. By speeding up restructuring processes, we could do something to address the root causes of insecurity in Africa, at little cost to the Treasury.
When it comes to the threats that face us, the biggest is climate heating. Whether Africa makes its green transition in a fair and timely way matters to the UK, as we all live on the same planet, and there is enormous potential to mitigate and adapt to climate change across the continent. However, the funding is not there, and the international development White Paper acknowledges that it cannot all come from international assistance or private sector investment. We have to free up African public funds if climate change is to be tackled in a joined-up, strategic way—the same way we plan to tackle it here in the UK.
The Government’s White Paper acknowledges some of the harms done by our failing global debt system. That is truly welcome, but I hope the Minister agrees that what we need to do now is go beyond acknowledgement and act, because there is no more time for us to lose.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
I apologise for my slightly tardy arrival earlier, Mr Vickers; it is a real pleasure to be here. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) for securing this timely debate, and I pay tribute to his work as vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on extreme poverty. This is such an important area, and I am also grateful for the thoughtful contributions from all hon. Members. I will try my best to respond to all the points raised, but I will ensure that officials write if I miss any or do not have the full information at my fingertips.
The Minister for Development and Africa, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), wanted to be here, but his responsibilities meant that he had to make a statement in the main Chamber on the White Paper today, as colleagues have mentioned, so it is a pleasure for me to respond on his behalf.
I want to pull out a couple of points that the Minister made in that statement. When speaking about the important role that development has played in transforming the lives of billions of people, he said:
“The UK can be immensely proud of our distinct contribution to this incredible success story. Two centuries ago, three quarters of the world lived in extreme poverty. When I was born, around half still did. By 2015, when the world met the millennium development goals, the proportion of a much larger global population had fallen to just 12%.”
Development does work, but as we all see, and as thoughtful contributions from hon. Members today have highlighted, after decades of hard-won, persistent progress, we are now living in a world facing a daunting set of new challenges. We are seeing rising poverty, and the UN sustainable development goals are nearly all off track for 2030. We are all cognisant of the challenges, and this timely debate, which focuses on a potential enabler of successful development if the world can make more progress on these debt issues, is an important one.
As colleagues have set out, debt is a major concern for many developing countries, not least those in Africa. I spend most of my time speaking as the Minister for the Indo-Pacific, and some of the big challenges are also clearly seen there. Recent trends paint a sobering picture. Debt levels in Africa are at their highest since the early 2000s, with debt repayments due in 2024 estimated to be six times greater than they were in 2021. Twenty-one of the continent’s 38 low-income countries are now either in debt distress or at high risk of entering debt distress in the next few years. Low-income countries are also increasingly exposed to a wider range of creditors. For example, Chinese debt accounted for 18% of their external debt in 2020, up from only 2% in 2006.
The debt burden of African countries rose over the decade leading up to the pandemic, and it was stoked significantly by the challenges of covid and the impact of Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, disrupting prices for oil, grain and fertiliser. That has led to greater demands for borrowing, rising interest rates and huge pressures on spending and services. According to the UN, between 2019 and 2021, 25 African countries—nearly half the continent—spent more on interest payments than on health.
As colleagues have set out, successive UK Governments, regardless of political colour, have played an important leadership role on international debt over recent decades, from the work done to establish the heavily indebted poor countries initiative in the 1990s to the Gleneagles G8 summit in 2005, for instance. To date, the UK has cancelled £2 billion of debt under these initiatives, and the international community collectively has agreed cancellations worth more than $100 billion. The Government have continued to adapt our approach in recent years in response to the evolving debt pressures on lower-income countries.
When the pandemic hit, we worked rapidly with G20 partners to establish the debt service suspension initiative, which deferred around $13 billion of debt repayments to the G20 and Paris Club. In November 2020, the G20 and Paris Club agreed to a new common framework, as colleagues have noted, to provide debt restructuring and relief to countries that require it. Although two countries—Chad and Zambia, as mentioned by colleagues —have reached restructuring agreements with official bilateral creditors through the new common framework, I think we would all agree that progress has been far too slow.
I will update colleagues on the specifics of UK debt relief; the figures are greater than some quoted by Members. We have provided £1.4 billion through the multilateral debt relief initiative, £150 million through the IMF’s catastrophe containment and relief trust, and roughly £600 million bilaterally as part of the HIPC initiative. So we are leading the way, and we have set out, in a number of areas, our new approach to debt and development in our international development White Paper.
First, we have committed to work with our partners to reshape and reform the debt architecture so that it is fit to address today’s challenges. We will push for the common framework to be more co-ordinated, predictable, transparent—which is important—and timely. We will use the UK’s position on official creditor committees, both within and outside the framework, to help return countries to debt sustainability. We will push more forcefully for the timely conclusion of debt treatments, including debt standstills, where relevant. Importantly, of course, this is a G20 initiative, built on consensus, and delays by some members, such as China, make the pace all the more challenging to achieve.
Secondly, we will ensure that key debt management tools are fit for purpose. That includes, for example, updating the IMF’s debt sustainability frameworks to take account of the impact of climate change—obviously, that is a critical element and many colleagues have highlighted it today—and the investments needed to address it and drive the adaptation and resilience programmes that are needed to support countries.
Thirdly, we will push forward best practice with the private sector, which now accounts for 19% of the foreign debt owed by low-income countries. We will encourage them to introduce contractual innovations, including climate resilient debt clauses, which pause repayments when a shock hits, such as a flood or cyclone. We have pioneered the use of such clauses in our lending agreements, enhancing the ability of developing countries to respond to external shocks. We want to see such clauses rolled out across private and official sector lending. We will encourage the private sector to embrace majority voting provisions in debt contracts to facilitate better outcomes in debt restructurings.
Fourthly, we will support debtor countries. We will continue to champion their voice in fora such as the global sovereign debt roundtable and we will work to find other ways to strengthen their voice. We will also help them to strengthen their debt management capacity with support from our new centre of expertise on public finance and tax.
Finally, we will champion greater debt transparency to build creditor confidence and keep borrowing costs down. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown), highlighted that one of the really difficult and continuing challenges is that the risk profile adds yet another layer.
We in the UK are very proud of our record of transparency as a lender. In 2021, we became the first G7 country to publish details of all new Government lending on a quarterly basis, and we have secured a commitment from other G7 countries to do the same. We will continue to work to push transparency further, reporting on our adherence to the G20 guidelines for sustainable financing, and encouraging the private sector and lending and borrowing countries to disclose their debt agreements properly.
Alongside those five steps to address unsustainable debt levels directly, we are working to help countries to avoid debt distress. The UK Government have a strong track record in helping developing countries to collect more tax and manage their public finances. We will encourage Governments, through the responsible infrastructure investment campaign, to demonstrate that all major infrastructure projects are economically viable and have been competitively tendered.
Jim Shannon
If I have heard her correctly, the Minister has outlined a number of ways forward. Time is of the essence. Many of these countries are in extreme debt. I, along with others, am keen to get a timescale for when those debt decisions could be made and when those countries could move away from where they are. Is that possible? Can the Minister please do that?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The hon. Member challenges me on something that I cannot give him an answer to. I will ensure that the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield, comes back to him and that that conversation can continue in more detail. I hope that is helpful. I am not the expert in the detail of this so I will ask my right hon. Friend to make sure that the issue is highlighted. To the hon. Member for Strangford’s point, I should say that none of this is immediately resolvable; it is very much around a consensus effort through international partners. However, I will ensure my right hon. Friend gets back to hon. Members accordingly.
As part of our work, we continue to support the debt sustainability challenge by encouraging international financial institutions to scale up their support for the poorest and most vulnerable countries, which are particularly in Africa. We are a leading donor to the multilateral development banks that provide countries with more affordable concessional finance and have announced UK guarantees over the last two years that will unlock more than $2.6 billion in additional finance for African countries.
We have delivered on our commitment to channel a further $5.6 billion of our share of the IMF’s historic issuance of $650 billion of special drawing rights to the IMF’s concessional lending facilities to support vulnerable countries. Perhaps the biggest prize of all is stretching the balance sheets of our MDBs to get more from their existing resources. They could potentially deliver an extra $300 billion to $400 billion over the next decade by implementing the G20 capital adequacy review recommendations. We will continue to push them to do so.
The hon. Member for Slough highlighted the critical challenge that we all face in supporting women and girls, who are so often at the end of the line on funding, education, healthcare and, indeed, tools and investments to help them make the climate adaptation they need in their communities. That is why the international women and girls strategy, which we published earlier in the year, sets out clear commitments with more than £2.5 billion of live official development aid programmes at the moment for women and girls in Africa. The strategy also commits at least 30% of the FCDO’s bilateral aid programmes to focus on gender and equality through to 2030, which is absolutely at the heart of our commitment to the way we want to deliver those development aims.
To conclude, we absolutely recognise the serious challenges that debt poses for countries in Africa. That is why the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield, set out in the international development White Paper a wide-ranging and comprehensive approach to address them. I thank colleagues for their thoughtful comments and their cross-party support for the work that my right hon. Friend has set out. By building on progress in the common framework, innovating alongside private creditors and working to encourage debt transparency and sustainable lending, the Government will work to ensure that unmanageable debt is swiftly restructured so that countries can develop sustainably.
Mr Dhesi
It has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers, for what has been a thoughtful and emotive debate. I thank all hon. Members for their commendable contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) drew on her enormous experience as a long-standing campaigner who has worked in the field, asking the Government for effective legislation to address the issues. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke about how we need to help African countries out of their difficult patch. He spoke about having compassion and realism when restructuring debts, because the United Kingdom must be a supportive nation. The hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) spoke at length about the legacy of colonialism and the exploitation of mineral extraction. She said that wealth is not benefiting local people and asked for debt cancellation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), who has substantial knowledge and experience in this area, said that the debt crisis is real. In his eloquent way, he said that debt is an enslavement of future generations. He said that the battles against global poverty and other ills are being lost, that we must be a true partner to our African friends and that we must work together.
The SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), mentioned our recent visit to Africa, where we looked into the effects of malaria and neglected tropical diseases, and at how the growth of African nations is being hampered. We spoke at length to other stakeholders about that. He spoke about the need for co-operation from private sector creditors that are charging higher interest rates, which the Government need to address.
The shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Ms Brown), said that Africa has a young, dynamic population. She said that although the international development White Paper is a welcome sign, our collective plea is that the Government must show commitment and compassion to deliver.
We need to break the downward doom loop of debt in Africa. There is so much potential in Africa, but we must help our friends there—yes, our friends and fellow human beings—to achieve that aim.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of debt in Africa.
RAAC: St Leonard’s, Durham
(1 year, 1 month 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
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete at St Leonard’s Catholic School, City of Durham.
I welcome the Minister to his place; I know that the right hon. Gentleman has a great deal of experience at the Department for Education and I look forward to working with him to resolve the situation at St Leonard’s. I note that only a week into his role he has already offered to meet me, and I thank him for that. That is far more than his predecessor offered.
There are four purposes to this debate. The first is to bring the Minister up to speed with the situation; the second is to ensure that there are no delays to building the temporary structures; the third is to deliver justice to the parents and pupils at the school; and the last is to accelerate the promised and much deserved rebuild of St Leonard’s.
First, I will supply a bit of history. In 2010, the then Education Secretary scrapped the Building Schools for the Future programme—something that he later regretted. Although that contrition from the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is welcome, let’s face it: he is not the one suffering the consequences of a crumbling school—unlike the parents, pupils and teachers in my constituency, who were shocked when St Leonard’s was ordered to close just days before the autumn term began, due to the presence of RAAC.
Parts of St Leonard’s remain shut, 11 weeks on. That has had a serious impact on the lives of my constituents and the children at the school. I will shortly share some of the comments I have received from parents. This is an extremely important year for pupils in year 11 and the sixth-form students in year 13—a crucial year for GCSEs and A-levels. So far, the Government have offered no dispensation for those pupils, who have had more than 11 weeks of their education disrupted.
Let us not forget that, for those studying design and technology, music, sciences and specialist subjects, the disruptions are ongoing: there are no labs, no music rooms and no workshops available. Instead, pupils are being taught in a noisy sports hall and in classes of up to 60. In addition, Ofqual has told me that it is
“not in a position to agree adaptations”
even though items such as coursework and school books were not retrieved from the old building until 27 October. Full face-to-face learning did not commence until 30 October, with parts of the school remaining shut now. It is clearly nonsense that, on the one hand, pupils would be allowed mitigating circumstances if a fire alarm went off in the school during an exam, but, on the other, they are denied exemptions if their schooling has been disrupted for more than 11 weeks.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
As my hon. Friend knows, many pupils at St Leonard’s travel from North Durham. I have had representations similar to the ones she has received from parents about the effect on exams. Does she agree that, in spite of that, some of the teachers are doing great work in trying to overcome the difficulties? They are seriously concerned about the effects of the disruption on those children’s exam results next year.
Mary Kelly Foy
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. The staff have been working under such difficult circumstances. They have seen first hand the effect the situation is having on their pupils, who have worked so hard. We should remember that they are pupils who also suffered through the pandemic. We are urging the Minister to do all he can. I implore him to change Ofqual’s refusal to make any mitigations. He could perhaps amend the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, or give a one-off dispensation to the pupils in years 11 and 13—anything to help these pupils and their families.
I must mention a pupil at St Leonard’s, Henry Hague, who bravely questioned the Department for Education officials when they visited the school. Henry asked, “Will our difficulties be recognised for A-level and GCSE results?” The DFE said no. What message is that sending to Henry’s generation? It is that the Government are not prepared to help them and that their departmental officials gloss over this injustice. The King’s Speech stated:
“Steps will be taken to ensure young people have the knowledge and skills to succeed”.
Does that include the nearly 1,500 pupils at St Leonard’s? It does not seem that way.
Eleven weeks on, parents, pupils and teachers are fed up—fed up with the additional costs and the additional stresses that this situation has put them in. I do not blame them; I would feel exactly the same in their position. To add insult to injury, the school has been asking the DFE to intervene for years. It even lobbied the then Schools Minister, the right hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb), in 2017, but nothing came of it.
I have read that if the Tory-led Government—and let us not forget the Liberal Democrats, who supported this as well—had kept the Building Schools for the Future programme, every single school with RAAC, including St Leonard’s, would have been rebuilt by this year. I urge the Minister to lobby the Treasury and No. 10 to reintroduce that programme; perhaps the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities can join him.
I now turn to the comments that I have received from parents. Time does not permit me to share everything, but I want to challenge the new Schools Minister. I know that he has only been in the role for a week, but I ask him to please come to Durham and speak to the parents himself, not just to selected groups, and demonstrate to my constituents that he is on their side and will get this mess cleared up as soon as possible. What my constituents and their children are going through is an injustice. There are no other words to describe it. Parents at St Leonard’s appreciated that Baroness Barran visited and told us that money would be no object, but now they feel like they have been abandoned.
Parents are extremely concerned about the mental wellbeing of their children—not only that, but some have said that their child’s mental health is in decline. Let us not forget that there are additional pressures on children with special educational needs and disabilities, and for children who receive free school meals. I am really concerned because they receive only packed lunches at the moment, rather than hot meals.
This has taken a toll on the mental health of the parents, too. Both parents and pupils are worried about catching up due to lost time in the classroom. They are worried about exams and about the future, especially when so many of these pupils already had their educations disrupted by the pandemic. Parents have also told me that they are having to fork out for private tuition for their kids, and, to compound this stress, they are having to organise childcare and rearrange their own work schedules. Other issues, such as transport, are also eating into teaching time as pupils now have to travel to new locations. That is not at all helped by the greedy bosses at Go North East. Perhaps the Minister could have a word with his colleagues at the Department for Transport and encourage them to give bus drivers the pay rise that they deserve.
I must say that the parents, pupils, and teachers—and all the school staff—have amazed me with their resilience. It is privilege to represent them here. If only previous Ministers demonstrated the same fortitude as my constituents. On that note, I turn to ministerial accountability—or the lack of it. We had a statement from the Secretary of State for Education at the beginning of September, but that was the last proactive statement made by the DFE on the subject in this House.
Ministers had to be summoned via urgent questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson). Although we can use named day questions to hold Ministers to account, those are useful only if Departments actually answer them. On issues such as free school meals, I received copy-and-paste replies. On other issues, I never even received a response prior to Prorogation. Responses to my named day questions in the last Session were late, and in this Session one was over a week late. However, I note that the Minister provided a response a few hours ago.
In addition, there was a written statement on school funding in the final week before Prorogation, and again the then Minister had to be summoned to the House via an urgent question. I hope you will agree, Mr Vickers, that this is not a dry procedural issue; it matters to my constituents and their children. In this Session, the DFE and other Departments must up their game and show my constituents the respect they deserve.
I want to finish with some asks. On costs, can we please speed up the process of remunerating the trust? Although I am aware at the Government have paid some of the costs up front, including for Ushaw College, the trust has spent more than £500,000 for critical services, and only £50,000 has been reimbursed so far.
Mr Kevan Jones
St Benet’s in Ouston in my constituency of North Durham is affected by reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. It is a feeder school for St Leonard’s, and no commitment has yet been given about whether it will be rebuilt. Pupils are already leaving the school, and its budget next year and, ultimately, the feed into St Leonard’s will be affected by that. Does my hon. Friend agree that early decisions need to be made about whether St Benet’s will be rebuilt, and that it should be compensated next year for the fall in pupils?
Mary Kelly Foy
I could not agree more. The school and the trust are very concerned that pupil numbers will be low next year for obvious reasons. That is partly due to some pupils wanting to move to other schools and partly because the feeder schools are understandably choosing to go elsewhere. We need some assurance about a timeline for getting things somewhere near back to normal, and about what will happen with the St Benet’s rebuild.
Will the Minister please offer a dispensation for pupils in years 11 and 13? Amend the 2009 Act, make a one-off exemption—anything. I would also appreciate it if he would address support for children on free school meals and the lack of hot food.
Finally, I reiterate my challenge to the new Schools Minister: come to Durham, speak to the parents and pupils of St Leonard’s, and let us sort this mess out together.
The Minister for Schools (Damian Hinds)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Vickers, I think for the first time as I respond to a debate in Westminster Hall—
Damian Hinds
The second. I thank the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and congratulate her on securing a debate on this important subject.
The Government are committed to ensuring that every child in the country gets a first-class education and every opportunity to make the very best of their abilities. I understand that parents, schools and this House are concerned about reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, and we are moving decisively to address it while minimising the disruption to education. Before I come to St Leonard’s Catholic School, I want to set out why we are taking this cautious approach to RAAC and how the Government are supporting schools and colleges across England.
Professional advice from technical experts on RAAC has evolved over time, and the managing its risks across all sectors has spanned successive Governments since 1994. Although local authorities, academy trusts and other bodies are directly responsible for school buildings, and we fund them as such, we have taken a direct and proactive approach to RAAC.
We have been talking to schools about the potential risks of RAAC since 2018, when we first published a warning note with the Local Government Association, which asked all responsible bodies to identify any properties constructed using RAAC and to ensure that RAAC properties are regularly inspected by a structural engineer. In February 2021, we issued a guide on identifying it. Concerned that not all responsible bodies were acting quickly enough, in 2022 we decided to take a more direct approach. Last year, we issued a questionnaire to responsible bodies to ask them to identify whether they had or suspected that they had RAAC, and started a significant programme of technical surveys. We have been sending professional surveyors to schools and colleges in England to assess whether RAAC is present. We have eight survey firms contracted to deliver technical surveys to all schools and colleges that have advised us that they suspect they might have RAAC, so that we can rapidly confirm whether it is indeed present.
Although building maintenance is the duty of councils, academy trusts and voluntary-aided school bodies, RAAC cases over the summer reduced the Department for Education’s confidence that school and college buildings with confirmed RAAC should remain in use without mitigations being put in place. Following careful analysis of those cases, we made a precautionary and proactive change. On 31 August, we updated our guidance to schools and colleges so that areas previously deemed to contain non-critical RAAC are now taken out of use until mitigations are put in place. Professional guidance makes it clear that wherever RAAC is found, it needs to be monitored closely. The technical guidance does not say that mitigations need to be put in place in all buildings that contain RAAC.
As of 16 October, responsible bodies had submitted responses to our questionnaire for 99.9% of schools and colleges with blocks built in the target era, and DFE has since resolved the remaining 17. Any required surveys of potential RAAC cases are carried out by one of eight professional survey firms, and the vast majority of schools surveyed to date have been found to have no RAAC. As of 16 October, 214 education settings had confirmed RAAC in some of their buildings. Thanks to the hard work of school and college leaders, 202 settings—94%—are providing full-time face-to-face education for all pupils, while 12 have hybrid arrangements that may involve some remote learning on some days. We are supporting these education settings to put in place mitigation plans, and the majority have now returned to full-time face-to-face education or will do so very shortly.
We will do everything in our power to support schools and colleges in responding to RAAC in their buildings. Every school or college with confirmed RAAC is assigned dedicated support from one of 80 caseworkers. Project delivery teams are onsite to support schools and colleges to implement mitigation plans. They will work with them to put in place a bespoke plan that supports face-to-face education for all pupils as soon as possible, based on their circumstances. There is not a one-size-fits-all mitigation plan, and what is right for a school or college will depend on a number of individual local factors. Mitigation plans include using other spaces on the school site, in nearby schools or elsewhere in the local area until structural works are carried out or temporary buildings are installed.
The Government are funding the emergency work needed to mitigate the presence of RAAC, including installing alternative classroom space where necessary. All reasonable requests for additional help with revenue costs, such as transport to other locations or temporarily renting local premises, are being approved. The Government are funding longer-term refurbishment or rebuilding projects to address the presence of RAAC in schools. Schools and colleges will be offered either capital grants to fund refurbishment work to permanently remove RAAC, or rebuilding projects where these are needed, including through the school rebuilding programme. The requirements for each school or college will vary depending on the extent of RAAC and the nature and design of the buildings, and we are working closely with responsible bodies to assess what the right solution is in each case.
I recognise the challenges being faced by the staff and pupils at schools that have had to vacate space due to the presence of RAAC, including St Leonard’s Catholic School in the hon. Lady’s constituency. As she will know, a particular challenge for St Leonard’s is the prevalence of RAAC in the school’s buildings, which has resulted in a significant proportion of them being taken out of use while mitigations are put in place. I thank the headteacher and all the staff at St Leonard’s for their hard work in supporting their pupils through this time. I recognise the pressure staff have been under, and I am committed to continuing to work with the school on how we can support it to respond to RAAC and minimise any disruption to education. The Department has been working closely with the school to implement mitigation plans in order to ensure that face-to-face education can continue for all pupils. This has involved structural works to some of the buildings in addition to arranging alternative, offsite accommodation. We have supported the trust in bringing pupils back into face-to-face learning as quickly as possible to lessen the impact on education. All pupils at St Leonard’s, as the hon. Lady said, have been in full-time face-to-face education since October.
Temporary classrooms are being installed on the school’s playing fields. RAAC has impacted on many of the specialist facilities, as she rightly said, including science labs, IT rooms and D&T areas. We continue to explore options for the delivery of those specialist places as soon as possible.
Pupils due to sit exams next year are currently using specialist facilities at other providers in the local area, with transport provided for pupils. We are working closely with the school to identify how all pupils can have access to specialist facilities. We have provided assistance and facilitated sector support to ensure that children at St Leonard’s have not been disadvantaged, prioritising pupils in examination years. Crucially, we are working with the school on extra education support for pupils. That includes sourcing extra teaching capacity at St Leonard’s with an educational support programme that may include tutoring available for pupils this term.
Qualification-awarding organisations have been working and continue to work with schools including St Leonard’s, although they may have specific difficulties in delivering assessments due to specialist classrooms being unavailable for a time. Awarding organisations have discretion to grant extensions to deadlines for non-examination assessment or coursework, based on a school’s specific circumstances, and will offer as much flexibility as they can when considering such steps. I know that St Leonard’s is meeting one of the awarding organisations with which it works tomorrow, and another is hoping to meet St Leonard’s later this week.
As I set out earlier, the Government are funding the emergency work needed to mitigate the presence of RAAC, and all reasonable requests for additional help with revenue costs are being approved. I note what the hon. Lady said about the timeliness of so doing. I will follow up on that, and we will have a chance to discuss it when we meet.
We are supporting St Leonard’s specifically on the funding of temporary classrooms on the school site, we are funding the use of specialist facilities at other providers in the local area, and we will continue to work with St Leonard’s on what further support may be needed.
Mr Kevan Jones
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Does he not also realise that the trust has a problem because, at the feeder school that I mentioned in my constituency, St Benet’s, pupils are already leaving and next year’s roll is going to go down, so St Leonard’s will have difficulty recruiting students next year? Will any compensation be given to the trust and the individual schools because their rolls have gone down through no fault of their own?
Damian Hinds
I will follow up separately with the right hon. Gentleman about St Benet’s specifically, and we can discuss it further. On overall funding, he will know that there is an established system whereby funding follows the pupil. In the case of St Leonard’s—I was going to come on to this exact point—there is also the prospect of the rebuilding to come, which is a great positive for the school. St Leonard’s is set to be rebuilt as part of our 10-year school rebuilding programme, which, overall, will transform hundreds of schools across England. In the meantime, we will continue to support the school in mitigating the impact of confirmed RAAC.
I am grateful for all the extensive time that the hon. Member for City of Durham has given to this matter, including to this debate. I look forward to meeting her—I believe we will do so next week—to discuss the support for St Leonard’s in more detail. I reassure pupils, parents and staff that the Government are doing whatever it takes to support our schools and colleges in responding to RAAC and minimising the disruption to education. I specifically want to thank the team and staff at St Leonard’s for their hard work in responding to RAAC. The Government have been working and will continue to work closely with affected schools and colleges, including St Leonard’s, to support them, to mitigate affected spaces and to minimise disruption to children’s learning.
Question put and agreed to.
Autism and Learning Disability Training
(1 year, 1 month 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
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered autism and learning disability training for education staff.
It is a great pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I am grateful to have been allocated parliamentary time to discuss the very important issue of autism and learning disability training for education staff. The debate arises in response to three e-petitions: petition 639050, which calls for education staff to be required to have trained in learning disability and autism and which has received over 69,000 signatories; petition 638530, which calls for mandatory training for teachers in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism and which has 1,500 signatories; and petition 634354, which calls for training on neurodiversity for university staff and which has over 16,000 signatories.
I thank everyone who took time to sign the petitions, which clearly relate to issues that are of huge concern to people across the country. I also thank the nearly 3,000 people who contributed to the Commons engagement team survey and gave their views on more education staff training. Some of the stories which they have shared with us have been exceptionally troubling. I am grateful for the time and effort that has gone into communicating those stories, which in some cases involved sharing very painful experiences.
There are around 200,000 autistic pupils in England and nearly 75% of them are in mainstream schools. According to research by the National Autistic Society, only a tiny proportion—just 26%—of autistic pupils feel happy at school. Three in four parents or carers—74%—said that their child’s school place did not fully meet their needs, and more than one in four parents, or 26%, waited over three years to receive support for their child.
Autistic children often speak of feeling misunderstood and of school being a place where there is bullying and loneliness. Such experiences lead to issues with mental wellbeing, sometimes to self-harm, and to a lack of self-esteem and self-confidence. The responses to the engagement survey starkly support the claim that autistic children do not always have a positive experience at school. In fact, in cases in which things go badly wrong, autistic children not only miss out on their education, but have experiences that can haunt them throughout their lives—stealing their future prospects, leaving them struggling to get into or stay in the workplace, and driving very distressing health impacts. Those detrimental effects can continue well into adulthood.
Deborah, the mother of one autistic child, said:
“After nine years of experiencing the school system…she removed her son completely and started home education so that they could mend his mental health and school-caused trauma.”
One mother told us of the
“Huge emotional impact”
that had
“led to serious mental health issues and withdrawal from education and society as a whole.”
She stated that her child’s experience had
“led to isolation, complete withdrawal from any form of education and reluctance to interact across all levels of society.”
The National Autistic Society’s education rights helpline has seen a huge spike in calls related to college and university education.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward the debate. All of us have an interest in autism, and I know that others have a personal interest in it, but we are here to support the hon. Lady. Back in 2020, the former Education Minister in Northern Ireland—now Lord Weir in the other place—published an enhanced autism training programme. The hon. Lady referred to universities, and it is important to note that it is not only children who are affected by autism. Does she agree that the same considerations from that report must apply to colleges and universities across the UK, so that older students who suffer from autism have the same support as those in schools? I think the hon. Lady’s answer will be yes, but I am curious about her response.
Dame Caroline Dinenage
The hon. Gentleman anticipates correctly and, as ever, makes an important contribution to the debate. That is why we are discussing a petition, which over 16,000 people signed and which calls for university students to be included and for the education to go up as far as university lecturers and other university staff.
Before I go any further, I want to say that this is not a problem with teachers per se. This debate is not about attacking the teaching profession nor is it meant in any way to undermine or criticise teachers and other education professionals. We know that teachers up and down the country do a remarkable and very important job, in many cases in increasingly challenging circumstances. Teachers are passionate about supporting their pupils. They want to give them the very best possible educational experience and the best life chances, but they need the right support to do that. This debate is about ensuring that teachers are given the best tools and advice they need to give autistic and neurodivergent children, children with a learning disability and, in fact, all the students they care for the best possible support and the best possible chance to have a happy, healthy and safe learning environment.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall and bringing together these petitions. Does she agree that we already have a precedent in the Health and Care Act 2022, which finally mandated training for health and social care professionals using the Oliver McGowan training programme? With the Autism Education Trust, we have a potential model that could be strategically rolled out to replicate the approach we are taking in health and social care in all fields of education.
Dame Caroline Dinenage
It is almost as if my right hon. and learned Friend read my mind. I will come on in a bit to talk about the Oliver McGowan training, which I am glad he endorses. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on autism, he speaks with enormous experience and passion on this subject, and I am grateful for his endorsement.
As we have heard, there is already training in this area, which I am sure the Minister will reiterate. However, a report by the National Autistic Society showed that just one in seven—14%—of schoolteachers have received any form of autism training. Rachel, a SEND learning support assistant, said, in her words, that she had
“not really received much training”,
and that when she started, she
“was thrown into the deep end.”
Everything Rachel knows is mainly based on her experience of working with SEN children, not her training, yet the survey responses show that where teaching and support are right, they can have a game-changing and enduring impact on the education and life chances of neurodivergent pupils, in some cases supporting them all the way through university and building them up for their adult lives and careers ahead.
What concerns me deeply, however, is the fact that further research from the National Autistic Society showed that while 87% of teachers surveyed said that they felt confident or very confident supporting autistic pupils in the classroom, findings from a 2021 report showed that seven in 10 autistic children and young people said that school would be better if more teachers understood autism, while 54% of autistic students said that having teachers who did not understand them was the worst thing about school. That is a problem. There is a clear and sizeable gap between how teachers think it is going and how autistic children and children with a learning disability actually feel. It is vital that we bridge that gap. It is simply not fair on either party if we do not. All children deserve to have the very best possible experience in the classroom and the best opportunities to learn and fulfil their potential.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The hon. Lady is making excellent points to which I give my very strong support. Does she recognise the experience of many of my constituents, with young people waiting perhaps two years for an education, health and care plan and a diagnosis? Something that has become obvious to me only recently is that 50% of the young people on the books of child and adolescent mental health services in my part of Cumbria have autism and ADHD. It turns out that through the NHS, via the local integrated care board, there is literally zero funding for that service to support any of those young people, which delays their getting the care and support that they need in the classroom, but also affects all young people—some with neurological issues and some without—who need support for eating disorders, anxiety and so on. Is it not time that the NHS funded CAMHS sufficiently so that young people with neurological issues can get the treatment and diagnosis that they need?
Dame Caroline Dinenage
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. There will not be a single Member of Parliament who has not had some issues with local CAMHS, sadly. Of course, early intervention and recognition is key to this and can stave off many problems that come further down the line. I would not be doing teachers or pupils justice if I did not refer to wider issues surrounding SEND provision and support for autistic children more broadly. We know that there are simply not enough specialist SEND school places or trained professionals to cope with the increased need.
Schools are required under the Equality Act 2010 to make adjustments, but there is only so much they can do with current provision. As we have heard, it takes an inordinate amount of time to secure an EHCP and then for the associated funding to filter through to the educational establishment concerned. Meanwhile, schools are left to pick up the tab and in many cases to pick up the pieces involved in offering incredibly intensive support to children with very complex needs.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady on securing this debate, which is very fitting and certainly much needed in relation to our schools. Does she agree that this issue is not only important in primary and post-primary education but in nursery and playgroup settings, where it is absolutely vital, because ultimately children affected by these issues need support measures in place as soon as they reach primary school? Nursery and pre-school provision is where the core of this work needs to sit.
Dame Caroline Dinenage
The hon. Lady must be Mystic Meg. I say that because that issue is exactly what I will come on to next.
Early years settings are a crucial place to start this work; the hon. Lady has hit the nail on the head. Early diagnosis and putting in place the building blocks of support from the outset can have a lifelong impact on a child’s attitude to education settings, and on their interaction and support from those settings; in fact, it can have a lifelong impact on their wellbeing.
If all education and care staff, particularly in early years settings, successfully underwent the right training, children who require extra support and assistance would be identified sooner, which would prevent some of the issues that we have heard about from developing. We heard from a teacher called Helen, who said that during her time in teacher training, which took four years, half a day was spent covering special educational needs. Such training leaves teachers ill-equipped to support a growing percentage of pupils in their classes.
I am sure that the Minister will tell me about the training that is provided. I expect that he will also tell me that the Government have published their strategy on special educational needs and disabilities and alternative provision improvement—not that I am trying to interpret his speech for him—and about all the increased investment in SEND, which is over £10.5 billion by 2024-25, and the universal services programme, which will receive £12 million in funding, and that £1.4 million is available for the strategic priorities grant to support students at risk of discontinuing higher education studies. Those numbers have very little meaning to those caught in the cyclone of the system if they do not filter through to create meaningful improvements on the ground. I will therefore set out what I would like to know from the brilliant Minister.
What assessment has the Minister’s Department made of the full picture of both learning disability training and autism training for education professionals? What level of understanding does he have about training—not only the quantity of training, but the quality of training? What conversations has he had with some of the excellent charities in this space and with the teachers, parents and children who actually live these things and therefore are experts by experience? To what level can he confidently tell me that all education professionals have the confidence to teach neurodivergent children and children with learning disabilities, so that their needs are met and their potential is realised? To what extent is the experience of students and their carers taken into consideration?
Mr Vickers, you have already heard about what I am about to say next. During my time as Minister of State for care, in the Department of Health and Social Care, I started work on introducing the Oliver McGowan mandatory training for all health and social care staff. That became law in the Health and Care Act 2022, and it is now the Government’s preferred and recommended training for health and social care staff.
The training is named after Oliver McGowan. Oliver was a remarkable young man whose tragic and completely avoidable death, at the age of just 17, shone a light on the need for health and social care staff to have better skills, better knowledge and better understanding of the needs of autistic people. It came about because of a meeting I had with Paula McGowan, Oliver’s incredible mum, who courageously shared her family’s unimaginable experiences with me and who has been a relentless advocate for the change that needed to happen. It is an honour to have Paula here today after she travelled all the way from Australia just to attend this debate.
Since November 2022, when the initial roll-out of the Oliver McGowan training began, over 1 million people have completed the first part. The training has received significant international interest in Canada, Australia and the Republic of Ireland, and as a result it has been made available on an e-learning platform. The initial feedback is incredibly exciting and shows a significant increase in participants’ knowledge, confidence and skill, with 88% of participants saying that they felt confident they could communicate with people with a learning disability and with autistic people, and with 84% of participants saying they felt more confident in their work.
The most significant thing about the training is that it is co-delivered with trainers who are autistic or learning disabled, and they are paid for their time. They are experts by experience and are able to give health and care professionals first-hand insight into how to listen, how to act and how to get this right.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I thank her for highlighting the wonderful training that is being rolled out. I wanted to bring to the attention of the House, through my role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for disability, some work that we were doing with Caudwell Children and its national children’s centre, and to highlight their hope that they can augment some of the work that is being undertaken in the UK to provide timely diagnosis and holistic assessment for children with autistic spectrum disorder. I put on record our thanks to Trudi Beswick for leading that wonderful centre and taking that work forward.
Dame Caroline Dinenage
First of all, I am very pleased to see my hon. Friend on this side of the House. She does a brilliant job as the chair of the APPG for disability, and I am very grateful to her for taking the time to make that commendation.
I will conclude very quickly. Following the success of the Oliver McGowan mandatory training, Paula has started a petition for all staff in educational settings to have similar mandatory training on learning disabilities and autism. As I said, that training needs to start with professionals in early years settings and go all the way through to colleges and universities: teachers, lecturers and education staff must know how to adapt to their environment, how to listen to what young people are saying, how to understand, how to manage a sensory overload and crisis and how to adapt communication to meet individual needs. George, a teacher, said:
“Training is often focused on the symptoms rather than the sensory issues and the understanding behind it. Whilst dealing with symptomatic behaviour is important it can be difficult to understand some causes.”
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
On the point about sensory overload, demands and anxiety, does my hon. Friend agree that, with the discrepancy between what kids see and what teachers feel they are doing, part of the challenge is in fully understanding what an autistic child or adult actually sees and has to deal with? Does she agree that that is quite difficult and that it requires significant time to fully understand the major challenges that lots of these kids go through and often succeed in pushing through, despite the challenges they face?
Dame Caroline Dinenage
That is an excellent point. It is worth pointing out that sometimes the behaviours that autistic children in particular can demonstrate can be very different. Autistic boys in the classroom behave very differently from autistic girls who might just sit at the back very quietly, mirroring others’ behaviour, while struggling inside and not having the support that they need. That point is really important.
Finally, has the Minister’s Department considered the brilliant Oliver McGowan model of mandatory training? What assessments has the Minister made for how that would benefit education professionals? By making the training mandatory, as it is for health and care staff, no teacher will miss out, which means that every child has an equal opportunity to gain support.
I ask the Minister to reflect on the stories that I have shared today and on those that we heard from other Members. While his Department is no doubt bolstering financial support, I ask him to consider the positive impact that mandatory training will have on the education of professionals and students. The success in health and care has been immediate and game changing, and I know that it has similar potential for children and young people’s education.
Several hon. Members rose—
Martin Vickers (in the Chair)
I received prior notice that two Members wanted to speak in this debate. I will call the Front Benchers from 5.7 pm, if Members would bear that in mind.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I am very pleased to speak in this important debate with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) on securing the debate and on the way in which she opened it.
I would like to pay tribute to Paula McGowan for her persistence in campaigning for this debate, for all her work to get the original debate that we held on this issue in 2018 and for all the campaigning work she has done since then. Paula has campaigned to secure around 70,000 signatures on the petition, so it is very good that we can discuss the Oliver McGowan mandatory training programme again. Her work has been instrumental in raising awareness of how we treat autistic people and people with learning disabilities in our health and care services. I pay tribute to her for that work.
In the debate which Paula helped to secure five years ago, I called for the Government to treat the introduction of mandatory training as an urgent priority. The Oliver McGowan mandatory training on learning disability and autism programme has now been delivered to around 750,000 healthcare staff—I think the hon. Lady said it was more than that, but that is the figure I have—and 200 people with a learning disability or autism have been trained to deliver parts of the programme. As we have heard, that is a very important part of it. Those are significant steps forward, but there is much more still to do.
Oliver’s case illustrates the degree to which people with learning disabilities or autism do not get the healthcare treatment they should expect from a civilised, compassionate society. Oliver was a young man with a full life expectancy who had overcome many challenges to excel as a footballer, as an athlete and in his exams. He was let down repeatedly because clinicians simply did not understand the nature of his autism. With better awareness and care adjustments, his death could have been avoided.
The petition on mandatory training that we are discussing recognises the role of teachers and schools in offering support to children and young people with a learning disability or autism. The rolling out of training on learning disabilities and autism is likely to significantly benefit the raising of awareness of learning disabilities and autism in the education sector.
The Government’s response to the petition states that headteachers should
“use their professional judgement to identify any further training”
for teachers. But the roll out of further training for education staff is clearly needed. Research by the National Autistic Society showed that 86% of secondary school teachers had received just half a day’s training on autism, and that three in four parents or carers of autistic children feel that their child’s school does not meet their needs.
One of my constituents—the parent of a boy aged nearly five who is showing traits of autism—told me about the struggle to get him support. She was told that he is “too naughty”, and he is limited to two hours of school a day. She said that her child
“is treated so differently, and he is more aware of it now. This makes him want to act out, as he thinks it’s what is expected of him. He cries every day when he has to leave so many hours earlier than the other children. I think this is another reason he acts out, because every day he knows he will only get a couple of hours of play with everything. He is overstimulated, and his behaviour is a lot worse during that time. If he had time to settle down, and a proper routine at school, he would be calmer and his behaviour would be a lot better, as it is at home. I worry that if he doesn’t receive the support he needs now, school may be a lot more difficult for him in the long run.”
Mandatory training on learning disabilities and autism for education staff could help to improve the situation for children and young people, as it undoubtably has been doing for health and care staff since it was rolled out.
Julian Smith
One of the challenges for autistic kids seems to be that many people they interact with in the school system have not received the training that the hon. Lady has been talking about, and they are being treated in a behavioural context. Does she agree that we should persuade teachers, or people who interact with kids, that the reason why these children act in the way they do is nothing to do with behaviour?
Barbara Keeley
It is very much like the case I have just given: the parent of that five-year-old boy is told that he is “too naughty” to have more than two hours of school a day, and that is absolutely disgraceful. It is not a behavioural problem if it is autism.
Education, health and care plans are another important source of support. As we have heard, there are 200,000 school-age autistic pupils in England, but just 55% have an education, health and care plan. The Government’s investment plan for children with special educational needs and disabilities claims that this is a priority area, but the National Autistic Society said there is “little substance” in the Government’s plan for reducing waits for a child’s education, health and care plan.
Concerningly, there have also been reports that the Government have signed a deal with a consultancy aiming to reduce targets for education, health and care plans by 20% for 55 local authorities, as part of a delivering better value in SEND programme. The consultancy firm was tasked with reducing cost pressures on local authorities by targeting a 20% reduction in the number of new education, health and care plans issued. It is painfully ironic that the design of this so-called value-for-money programme seems to have to cost the Government nearly £20 million in consultancy fees to Newton Europe. It is also painful to understand that the Government see education, health and care plans as cost pressures to be managed down, and not as vital documents that set out the education provision that children with significant needs must receive by law.
Tim Farron
I thank the hon. Lady for making such a valid point and for being so generous in giving way. It seems to me that even if we did not put an extra penny of funding into supporting young people with autism spectrum disorders—although we should—if we spent the money more intelligently and more fairly, we would do more good. We have a situation in which schools that do the right thing and accept young people with autism, and indeed other learning difficulties, are funded only once they get past the £7,000 threshold. Schools that do the right thing are having to spend out of their own coffers to support children, whereas schools that somehow dodge the bullet, so to speak, end up being financially rewarded. Is it not wiser that we spend money to support the schools that actually support the children?
Barbara Keeley
Indeed. Local authorities must be supported to fulfil their statutory duties to children and young people, just as schools and colleges, as a continuation, must access the training necessary to become genuinely inclusive. That is what we want to see.
As an MP, I raise many cases of parents and carers of children who have or are seeking a diagnosis of autism and are being failed by the schools they attend, yet it is such a fight to get an education, health and care plan for them. One of my constituents is the parent of a girl with complex special educational needs and disabilities who had to battle with the local authority to get an education, health and care plan for her daughter. My constituent told me about the battle she has had, saying that her daughter
“only has access to large mainstream secondary schools which is unacceptable for a child with such complex needs. I have provided all evidence, co-operated fully and repeated and repeated medical evidence and wrote lengthy information. They have all the information and now I am going to mediation and appeal. This process has taken over a year. I am exhausted. This is not good for anyone. I am not being heard and I am fighting to safeguard my daughter. I have a child with complex additional needs. My time, care and attention should be only focused on her but again I have to prepare now for mediation.”
I supported my constituent to get the plan for her daughter, but it took a long time and she ended up missing the first six months of secondary school.
It is crucial that we have better support for autistic pupils and pupils with learning disabilities. The Oliver McGowan mandatory training programme and education, health and care plans are both important elements in that respect. The Government must do more to ensure that autistic people and people with learning disabilities can receive the education they need, and that they are able to live long and independent lives in the community. Sadly, for far too many people that is a distant dream.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) on leading this petitions debate. I put on the record my congratulations to the Minister, this being is my first opportunity to do so.
I thank the 171 members of the public from Darlington who signed the petition that led to today’s debate. Every single week in my surgery, it is almost guaranteed that at least one family will come to see me with concerns related to neurodiverse conditions. It could be that they are awaiting an assessment or there are difficulties with the relationship with the school, or it could be that there are challenges with accessing medications. Each and every one of those families is trying to do the best for their children, and seemingly having to battle for the best for their children.
The day after I was elected, I was stopped in the street by three mothers in Darlington town centre. One of them asked me what I was going to do to help their families with autistic children. I must confess to having known very little about autism at that time, so I resolved to find out more and do all I could to support them. That learning continues, and only last week I was pleased to attend the understanding autism training for parliamentarians organised by the National Autistic Society.
I established the Darlington autism forum for parents of autistic children, and have organised multiple roundtable meetings with our local mental health trust and parents. I have visited Daisy Chain, a local charity that provides help and support to families who face these challenges, as well as places such as the Mackenzie Thorpe Centre in Redcar, which is operated by the North East Autism Society, to see the amazing work that they do with children.
Julian Smith
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work he is doing with families in his constituency. Does he agree that standing up for families who have autistic or neurodiverse kids—amazing kids they are supporting—can be really challenging? The parents are often judged by others on how they are handling very difficult situations, and they themselves need significant support.
Peter Gibson
My right hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. We in this place are sent here to stand up for our constituents. In my view, there could be nobody more important than those families facing the battles of looking after an autistic child.
As a constituency MP, I have visited almost every school in Darlington; I have two left to go. My visits almost always involve a discussion about children with special educational needs and autism. It is clear that there are growing numbers in every single one of our schools, putting pressure on the staff, some of whom are not necessarily specialists in the conditions. I must single out Red Hall School in Darlington, which secured funding to expand and provide a social, emotional and mental health specialist centre called Strive. Red Hall and others are doing fantastic work in Darlington.
I was disappointed to learn through written parliamentary questions that the Department for Education holds no national records of the training that teachers undertake on the relevant conditions. I welcome the Government’s recent announcement of additional funding, particularly for the new 40-place school in Darlington, which will deliver special educational needs places. However, my primary concern is for the pupils who are already in our mainstream schools and the support that they need.
The assessment backlog is frankly a scandal, with families sometimes having to wait up to three years to be seen. I acknowledge that there is a range of help and support available while they are awaiting assessment, but getting children into the right school place, with the necessary specialists, is part of the solution. Staff need to be properly trained. The key has to be clearing the backlog of assessments. Today’s important debate provides an opportunity to put on the record my support for improved and expanded training on neurodiverse conditions for our hard-working teachers. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) on securing this important debate.
I have a personal interest in this subject. Many years ago, as a reasonably experienced further education lecturer, I was faced with a young man who was severely autistic, and I did not know what to do. Things have changed a bit since those days. Like the hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson), I have undertaken autism training. It is important that we get an awareness of autism into the general public as well as schools. It was difficult to listen to some of the stories told by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), because we all know that it happens, although none of us want it to happen anywhere.
In their recent programme for government, the Scottish Government have outlined their commitment to work with teachers to provide additional professional learning opportunities while seeking to build on the additional support for learning plan. I was a member of the Education Committee when I first came here, and I often think that it is easier to make big changes in a small country such as Scotland, with one main type of school—local authority schools—than it is to make them in England, which has many varieties of schools and a number of local authorities involved.
The Scottish Government are proud—as am I—of their investment in education. It is important that every pupil gets the best education possible for them. That is why in Scotland there is a national neurodevelopment specification for children and young people. It is based on the Scottish Government’s “Getting it right for every child”—GIRFEC—approach, which I have talked about in this place before. It is important that the same kind of education is given across the piece. The neurodevelopment specification makes it clear that support should be in place to meet the child or young person’s requirements when they need it, rather than depending on a formal diagnosis. That is particularly important. Parents often know what is best for their child, no matter which part of the United Kingdom they live in.
The Scottish Government’s additional support for learning legislation clearly places education authorities under duties to identify, provide for and review the support needs of their pupils. In 2021, the Scottish Government published the Autism in Schools action plan, and the majority of its actions are complete. Several of the actions, such as the funding of professional learning resources like the autism toolbox, are intended to be ongoing, to reflect best practice and current research in the area. The Scottish Government have outlined their commitment to work with teachers to provide additional professional learning opportunities while seeking to build on the additional support plan for learning.
It is really important that autistic pupils and those with other learning difficulties are treated equitably with others in their class. It is also important that not just teachers are involved in training when it comes to autism. In Scotland, a pupil support staff working group listens to pupil support workers in schools, who are often the staff who deal the most with autistic children. It is important that they have the training as well.
Julian Smith
Does the hon. Lady agree that it is about not just teaching support but dinner and food providers, janitors and other staff? Everybody who interacts with a child at a school should be able to deal with whatever part of the spectrum the child is on.
Marion Fellows
I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Raising autism awareness is so important across the spectrum, but especially in a school, where there should be a nurturing and welcoming environment for all pupils. The teaching standards in Scotland are set by the General Teaching Council, which requires teachers to be able to identify and respond appropriately to pupils with difficulties in or barriers to learning. In 2021, professional standards included a specific recognition of additional support needs, which is really important. Teachers cannot now be registered without that.
I referred earlier to my experience, which was really difficult, because I was presented with a young autistic man who was accompanied by a care worker, and I had no idea what to do. Things have changed in the intervening years. One thing worth mentioning is that the other students in my class really benefited after a year of this young man being with them. They became much more aware and supportive of him. It is important that all autistic children are allowed in the mainstream, where appropriate. Mainstream pupils and students learn as much as the autistic person.
Julian Smith
On the point of different children in mainstream education and how to deal with autistic children, along with the challenges that many autistic children face, they also have a huge opportunity, through the many aspects of neurodiversity that provide them with the ability to excel. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is critical to stress the positives as well as the challenges they face?
Marion Fellows
Yes. I find it strange to be so much in agreement with a Member from the Government side, but in this instance I am absolutely in agreement. I was in a school on Friday talking to fifth and sixth-year pupils. At the very end, a young lady came up and said, “I am autistic and want to know what you are going to do about this. Do you know about this particular society?” I had never heard of it, but I took that on board. I felt real pride and pleasure in the fact that she was able to use her autism as a way to approach her MP and was very proud of the fact that she was autistic. She knew more about the subject than I did—[Interruption.] Mr Vickers, I acknowledge your hand signal; I am going to wind up my speech.
It is really important that money is spent in schools to good effect, which is why I am proud that Scotland spends more per pupil than anywhere else in the UK. The Government need to look at training for teachers in England—that is what this debate is about—and support workers. Perhaps they should look at what they can learn from the Scottish example.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) on securing this important debate, and I thank everybody who has signed petitions to push this issue forward.
I welcome Paula McGowan to Parliament today, and I thank her for all the work she has done in the name of her son, Oliver, to campaign for better training for staff in the NHS and social care who work with autistic people and people with learning disabilities. Oliver’s Campaign has made so much progress, and the way Paula has turned her unimaginable pain into action on behalf of other families is inspirational.
I thank all Members who have spoken in this very consensual debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) drew on her great experience and her long commitment to improving the lives of autistic people and people with learning disabilities. She highlighted clearly some of the concerns about current Government policy, expressed in the SEND and alternative provision improvement plan—in particular, the explicit objective of reducing the number of EHCPs.
The hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) spoke about the important work he is doing to support his constituents. He also spoke about the backlog of assessments, which is an issue in many parts of the country, and the lack of support for such children in mainstream schools.
The need for better training for education staff working with children and young people who are autistic or have a learning disability is clear. The presentation of children with autism doubled between 2015-16 and 2022-23, and the number of children with an education, health and care plan more than doubled for autistic children and was up by more than a third for other SEND diagnoses in the same period.
When my oldest daughter was in primary school, she had a friend I will call Paul. Paul was autistic and high functioning: he could do really well at school if his social and emotional needs were properly met. What I witnessed over the seven years of Paul’s primary school journey was the extremely high extent to which his whole experience at school was determined by his teacher’s understanding of his social and emotional needs. In a school year when the teacher understood that Paul would become extremely anxious if there was a change in routine or if things had not been properly explained to him and took steps to avoid that happening, Paul flourished at school. But in a school year when the teacher did not understand Paul’s needs as an autistic person and treated him simply as a badly behaved child, his mum could be called to the school multiple times in the same week to collect him early. He became more and more anxious about going to school, and the whole year became a disaster.
Many schools and colleges work really hard to ensure their staff are well equipped to work with children and young people who are autistic or have a learning disability, and there is a lot of really good practice. I pay tribute to the incredibly dedicated workforce that provides specialist support to children and young people with autism and learning disabilities, and helps to make school a place where they feel safe and understood. In the absence of leadership and resources from the Government, parents all too often face a postcode lottery.
Paul’s story is being repeated in education settings across the country, and that is borne out in the persistent absence figures. Persistent absence from school is shockingly high across the board at present—22.5% of children missed 10% or more days of school in 2021-22—but it is significantly higher for autistic children, at 32%, and even higher for children with a SEND statement or EHCP, at 36.9%. That is a shocking and completely unacceptable situation. Day to day, it means that thousands of pupils are not having their needs met by mainstream schools, but that is little wonder given that the teacher training and continuous professional development curriculum has not developed to keep pace with the rising presentation of autism and SEND needs. We are simply not equipping teachers to meet the needs of every child in their classrooms. Although some teacher training courses offer the opportunity for students to develop further skills for working with pupils with SEND and autism, this is not consistent, and it is entirely possible to qualify as a teacher and start work in a school with only the most cursory knowledge, which is not supplemented or reinforced by further training or CPD.
Schools across the country are struggling to recruit special educational needs co-ordinators and SEND teachers, and there is a national shortage of educational psychologists working in the state sector. We cannot debate the need for autism and learning disability training for education staff without mentioning the wider context of the system of SEND support, which is almost completely broken. Parents across the country have to battle for the support their children need, and the resourcing pressures on local authorities are causing councils to refuse to fund EHCPs and forcing parents to go to tribunal, where 96% of them win.
The neglect of the SEND system over the past 13 years has been a shocking failure of successive Conservative-led Governments. A Labour Government would act to address the problems. Equipping education staff to understand and meet the needs of autistic children and children with learning disabilities is an essential step towards building an inclusive mainstream.
Peter Gibson
I am interested in hearing what the Labour party would do were it in government. Could the hon. Lady outline what it would do differently to tackle the challenges of recruitment that the sector faces?
Helen Hayes
I am just about to move on to exactly that. We would ensure that more children can have their needs met and be part of a school community close to where they live. Labour would use the funding from ending the tax breaks currently enjoyed by private schools to recruit 6,500 new teachers, including SEND specialists, thereby alleviating the current pressures on teaching staff and ensuring that teachers have time for the pupils in their classrooms. We would introduce a teacher training entitlement—an annual entitlement to CPD that could be used to increase expertise in autism and SEND. We would ensure that there is mental health support in every school across the country, and we would change the wider context in which schools are setting their priorities by reforming the Ofsted inspection framework to make inclusion part of our vision for what it means to be a good school. Inclusion would be part of the report card for schools, which, under Labour, would replace the single-word Ofsted judgment.
Helen Hayes
I will not. I need to finish so that the Minister can come in and there is time for the hon. Member for Gosport to wind up afterwards.
We want to see an increased focus on SEND within initial teacher training and the early career framework, and we will work with leading academic institutions, Teach First and others to ensure that all trainee teachers are routinely equipped to work with children with autism and special educational needs and disabilities. Establishing an inclusive mainstream where as many children as possible can thrive is the first step in reforming the system of SEND support, which has become broken and adversarial on the Government’s watch. A Labour Government will deliver the support that is so urgently needed.
The hon. Member for Darlington mentioned the recruitment and retention crisis. We recruit and retain staff in any part of the public sector when we work from the centre of Government to make their working environment tolerable and to relieve the day-to-day pressures they are under. The measures I have outlined today—there is more to talk about—will start the work of repairing this part of our public services, which is so important and so vital for some of the most vulnerable children, but also for some of the most special and talented children across our country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (David Johnston)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) for securing a debate on such an important subject. She has played an instrumental role in mandating learning disability and autism training across the health and care sector, and in rolling out the Oliver McGowan mandatory training. I know that my colleague the Secretary of State for Education, who championed that as a Minister in the Department of Health and Social Care, is an equally strong advocate for the training.
I thank Oliver’s family for their tireless dedication to this issue. They went through what no family should have to go through, and I share their passion for ensuring that dedicated and hardworking professionals have the knowledge, skills and expertise to provide the right support and try to ensure that no family experiences the same. I hope I might get the opportunity to meet Paula in a moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport predicted some—not all—of my answers to her questions on the picture of learning disability and autism training for education professionals. Teachers in schools focus on SEND at each stage of their training. To be recommended by an accredited provider for qualified teacher status, trainees must demonstrate that they meet the teacher standards at the appropriate level. Both the initial teacher training core content framework and the early career framework outline what trainee and new teachers should learn, including content on adaptive teaching for students with special educational needs.
The universal services programme, which my hon. Friend touched on, provides SEND-specific training for the school and college workforce. So far, 6,600 school and college staff have accessed free online training modules, and 81 schools and 135 colleges have identified and led their own SEND-focused school improvement projects. Since the programme was launched in 2022, over 100,000 education professionals have undertaken autism awareness training through the Autism Education Trust’s “train the trainer” model. My hon. Friend may not know this, but the largest take-up of the programme’s range of online units has been within her own local authority of Hampshire. I assume that is in part due to her advocacy on this issue.
Our SEND and alternative provision practitioner standards, which will focus on supporting frontline practitioners in mainstream settings, will include a practitioner standard on autism. We will publish the first three practitioner standards by the end of 2025. Regarding the Department’s understanding of not only the quantity of training, but the quality, in the summer Ofsted carried out full inspections on all six lead providers of the early career framework that I referred to. All got a positive Ofsted judgment, with four of the six being awarded an “outstanding” judgment. Surveys from the universal services programme have consistently highlighted the positive impact of it, with 2,300 participants surveyed three to six months later finding that 98% had an improved confidence in identifying and meeting needs. Perhaps even more importantly, 93% had reported making changes to their practice as a result of accessing the activities.
I was asked about conversations I have personally had with teachers, parents and some of the excellent charities in this area. I have had a wide range of conversations as a constituency MP, because I visit a school in my own area pretty much every week. The issue of parents in Oxfordshire not getting the support they should for their children with special educational needs has been one of the top two issues I have been written to about in the last 18 months, so I had lots of conversations with parents, teachers and charities before I got to this role. In this role, I have made a number of visits around the country and had lots of meetings with different charities on this issue. The voice of parents has been incredibly important in elevating the status of this issue, more so even than the voice of schools or Government or local authorities. It is parents who very articulately describe what feels like a war of attrition to try to get the support they need for their children. It is a war that any parent would wage but no parent should have to.
On the confidence of professionals to teach neurodivergent children and children with learning disabilities so that their needs are met, our school and college panel survey indicated that just over half of schools agreed that they were able to effectively support pupils with special educational needs. The February 2023 parent, pupil and learner survey found that about 60% of all parents were confident in the school being able to meet their child’s needs.
My hon. Friend touched on the fact that the National Autistic Society and Ambitious about Autism reported that 87% of teachers surveyed felt confident supporting autistic children in the classroom. That is a very high figure, but I accept that, as she said, teachers’ confidence may not always reflect the experiences of children and their families. We are exploring opportunities to build teacher expertise by reviewing the initial teacher training framework and the early career framework, which we will conclude by the end of this year. In early 2024, we intend to publish what more we will do to support trainees and early career teachers to be more confident and have the most up-to-date evidence that should inform their practice.
SENCOs play a vital role in setting the direction of their schools and co-ordinating the support required by children with special educational needs. We want to invest in their training. That is why we have developed the new national professional qualification for SENCOs, which will come into force in autumn next year. We hope that will play a key role in improving outcomes for children with special educational needs in schools. We have also committed to funding 7,000 early years staff to gain an accredited level 3 SENCO qualification because, as we all know, the earlier we can identify need the better. That programme for the early years workforce has been hugely popular with the sector.
Turning to the point made by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), we are not targeting a 20% reduction in EHCPs or the growth of EHCPs. We have no target of that nature whatever. We want children to get the support they need at an early enough stage and without them needing an EHCP to get that support. I refer the hon. Lady to my letter to the Education Committee for further clarification.
David Johnston
I am not sure I have time because I need to stop at 5.28 pm, but I am happy to write to her.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) on all his work, which includes setting up a forum for the families of those with autism. That is typical of his work as a local champion. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), he brought the voice of families to this debate, which is the most important voice when we are discussing these issues.
More broadly, the Department for Education has worked closely with the Department of Health and Social Care to develop a refreshed cross-Government autism strategy, which was published in 2021 and backed by more than £74 million. This year the Department of Health and Social Care has allocated £4.2 million to improve services for autistic children and young people, including assessment services through the autism in schools programme.
There is a lot happening as part of the £2.6 billion special educational needs and AP reform programme. Of course there is more to do. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport for bringing us this debate and all of those professionals and parents who are working so hard to support children with these conditions. I look forward to working with Members present on how we can ensure that these children get the support they need at an early enough stage.
Dame Caroline Dinenage
It is very kind of you to call me to say a few words at the end, Mr Vickers. I am grateful to the Minister for his response. It is clear that he cares passionately about this. He set out a few details that will go some way to offering an element of reassurance.
This debate was not about knocking the Government or scoring any cheap party political points, and it certainly was not about undermining our education professionals. I know the Minister cares deeply about this and that education staff up and down the country care passionately about getting this right, but they need the right support, tools and knowledge to do that.
We do not need to reinvent the wheel to provide that. The Oliver McGowan training is already there and making a difference. It trains all health and care staff. We heard earlier of the importance of ensuring that it is not just those who are high up the academic food chain who receive the training. In health and care, it is based on how likely someone is to interact with patients, not their seniority. That is the same with children and young people. I draw the Minister’s attention to that disparity between how teachers think it is going and how children and their parents think it is going.
There is so much at stake for our young people: their education, wellbeing and futures. The Oliver McGowan training was one of the most important things I was involved in when I was a Minister. I encourage the Minister to meet Paula to talk about this further because it is an outstanding model.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered autism and learning disability training for education staff.
Written Statements
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Republic of Korea Trade Negotiations: Launch
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Greg Hands)
Today the Department for Business and Trade will launch negotiations for an upgraded free trade agreement (FTA) with the Republic of Korea (RoK), with the first round of negotiations to be held in Seoul in January.
In line with the Government’s commitments to transparency and scrutiny, more information on these negotiations will be published and placed in the Libraries of both Houses. This will include:
The strategic case for an upgraded UK-RoK trade agreement.
Our objectives for the negotiations.
A scoping assessment, providing a preliminary economic assessment of the potential impact of the agreement.
A summary of the responses to the call for input on trade with the RoK, held between December 2022 and February 2023. This took views from consumers, businesses, and other interested stakeholders across the UK on their priorities for upgrading our existing trading relationship with the RoK.
The RoK is an important trading partner in the Indo- Pacific region. Our trade relationship with the RoK has grown substantially since 2011, from £7.4 billion to £18.3 billion in 2022. The RoK is now the 13th largest economy in the world and the UK’s 21st largest trading partner. The RoK’s import market is expected to grow by 45% by 2035, to and have around 45 million middle-class consumers. This projected growth has the potential to drive further demand for world-class UK goods and services. This, therefore, is an opportune moment to ensure our trade agreement with the RoK is best tailored to the needs of the UK and delivering for our economy.
Our existing agreement came into effect in 2021 and enabled trade continuity between the UK and the RoK following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. It replicates the provisions outlined in the 2011 EU-RoK FTA. Our current agreement is one of the deepest FTAs that the RoK has signed to date and provides a strong platform for UK companies to access the RoK market. As part of securing and future proofing our trading relationship with the RoK, there are opportunities to maximise the number of UK businesses benefiting from this platform.
These negotiations provide an opportunity to secure simpler rules of origin which reflect UK industry requirements. Rules that consider existing and future supply chains, and are supported by predictable administrative arrangements, will help support the number of UK businesses accessing preferential tariffs.
In 2021, around 6,700 UK businesses exported goods to the RoK, of which 85% were small and medium enterprises (SMEs). An updated FTA could also further support SME trade with the RoK by streamlining existing complex arrangements, simplifying and digitalising customs procedures, and ensuring SMEs can access the wider benefits of a new FTA.
Since the current UK-RoK FTA was negotiated, trade policy has advanced in several areas. Perhaps most importantly, the existing agreement lacks comprehensive digital provisions. Both the UK and the RoK have previously negotiated world-class digital trade commitments with other trading partners, and this is an area of great potential for negotiations. Digital trade is rapidly becoming dominant, with 79% of our services trade with the RoK now delivered digitally. As a global services superpower, seizing opportunities in this area is a key part of further enhancing the UK’s prosperity.
Enhancing the UK-RoK FTA can also support the broader UK-RoK relationship and ensure it continues to thrive in the future, building on the 140 years of diplomatic relations we have enjoyed. Through these negotiations, we can take further steps to bolster our ongoing co-operation in areas such as energy and supply chains to anticipate and mitigate against future economic shocks.
In all of our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food safety standards. Protecting the NHS is a fundamental principle of our trade policy; the NHS, the price it pays for medicines and its services are not on the table.
The Government will continue to keep Parliament updated as negotiations progress, including close engagement with the relevant parliamentary Committees.
[HCWS56]
Investment Support
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Gareth Davies)
The Chancellor is announcing new measures to drive innovation and help pension funds and other investors to invest in high-growth businesses.
This includes new vehicles tailored to the needs of pension funds to help them invest the capital unlocked through the Mansion House compact. The Government will provide £250 million to support successful bidders under the long-term investment for technology and science (LIFTS) initiative, subject to contract, and is confirming plans to launch a new growth fund within the British Business Bank to give pension funds access to investment opportunities in the UK’s most promising businesses,
In addition, the Chancellor is announcing new measures to support innovative businesses to access the finance they need to start and scale up. These include:
At least £50 million of additional funding for the British Business Bank’s successful ‘Future Fund: Breakthrough’ programme—that will provide direct investment to support the UK’s promising pipeline of R&D-intensive firms;
A venture capital fellowship scheme to support the next generation of world-leading investors in our renowned VC funds, similar to the successful US Kauffman fellowship; and
A £20 million investment to foster more spin-out companies that are created using research done in universities.
Spin-outs are start-up companies that are created based on intellectual property (IP) generated through a university’s research. The Government are announcing the publication of the independent review of spin-outs.[1] The review has been led by two leaders in the field of academia and venture capital—Irene Tracey, vice-chancellor of Oxford University, and Andrew Williamson, managing partner of Cambridge Innovation Capital—and makes a series of recommendations to improve the performance of UK universities at spinning out companies.
The recommendations include best practice licensing deal terms—10-25% university equity for life sciences spin-outs, as per recently published guidance, and 10% or less for less IP-intensive sectors. The Chancellor is accepting all the recommendations and announcing £20 million for a new cross-disciplinary proof-of-concept research fund. This will help prospective founders in our universities demonstrate the commercial potential of their research. The full Government response will be published as part of the autumn statement.
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-of-university-spin-out-companies.
[HCWS58]
Low Pay Commission Recommendations
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Laura Trott)
Today I can inform the House that the Government will accept all of the independent Low Pay Commission’s recommendations for the new national living wage and national minimum wage rates, which will come into force in April 2024.
In April the Government published their remit to the Low Pay Commission for 2023, asking them to make recommendations for the national living wage in line with the Government’s ambitious target and manifesto commitment to reach two-thirds of median earnings by 2024 and the age threshold lowered to 21 years, provided that economic conditions allow.
The Low Pay Commission has recommended that:
The national living wage should increase by 9.8%, from £10.42 to £11.44 an hour, with the age threshold lowered from 23 to 21 years old;
The rate for 18 to 20-year-olds should increase by 14.8%, from £7.49 to £8.60 an hour; and
The rate for 16 to 17-year-olds and the apprentice rate should both increase by 21.2%, from £5.28 to £6.40 an hour.
The Low Pay Commission has also recommended that the accommodation offset increases from the current rate of £9.10 to £9.99 from 1 April 2024.
By accepting the Low Pay Commission’s recommendations, the Government will meet their target, ending low hourly pay for eligible workers.
The new national living wage rate of £11.44 will be a record increase and represents an increase of over £1,800 to the annual earnings of a full-time worker on the national living wage. The increases to both national living wage and national minimum wage rates are expected to benefit nearly three million workers.
These increases are due to come into effect from 1 April 2024, subject to parliamentary approval. The Government intend to lay implementing regulations before Parliament in due course.
[HCWS59]
NHS Federated Data Platform: Contract Award
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Victoria Atkins)
Today, NHS England announced that, following an open and competitive procurement, it has awarded a group led by Palantir Technologies UK, with support from Accenture, PwC, NECS and Carnall Farrar, the contract to provide the new NHS Federated Data Platform (FDP).
The NHS manages data in different systems that do not connect effectively or efficiently. Every day, clinicians and other hospital staff spend time on the phone and in meetings, trying to join this information up themselves—to manage their theatre lists, waiting lists and information on patients ready to be discharged. This time could be better spent caring for patients.
The FDP is software that will sit across NHS trusts and integrated care systems (ICSs), allowing them to connect data they already hold, such as health records, waiting lists, and theatre and staff rosters, in a safe and secure environment, to better manage patient care. The FDP will support key priorities of the NHS, including recovery of elective care and the improvement of discharge processes to get medically fit patients treated and home quicker.
The safety and security of patient data is front and centre of this new system. As happens currently, there will be clear rules and auditability covering who can access this data, what they can see, and what they can do. Only authorised users will be granted access to data for approved purposes—for example, NHS staff and those supporting them, such as administrators, bed managers or care co-ordinators, and staff in social care supporting the move from hospital care. The provider of the software will not hold or have access to NHS data for any purpose, other than as directed by the NHS; they will not control the data in the platform, nor will they be permitted to access, use or share it for their own purposes. The contract makes strict stipulations about confidentiality. No new data will be collected, and GP data will not be part of the national platform.
In addition, NHS England has awarded a contract to a separate provider, IQVIA, for privacy enhancing technology, as an additional safeguard to enhance the security of data used in the FDP. The FDP will not go live at trusts or ICSs until this privacy enhancing technology is in place.
Across England, 26 trusts have been piloting what the FDP will provide. Clinicians have described the results as “game-changing”. It has helped them to better organise their clinics and waiting lists by integrating and consolidating data from different hospital systems or by creating a single list of information used by everyone working in health and care on discharge of patients from hospital. Patients in these vanguard trusts have seen falls in waiting times, discharge delays reduce, and diagnoses speed up. Theatre utilisation has increased by more than 6%, meaning an average of 120 additional patients per month are being treated at each trust. A new discharge tool has allowed one trust to reduce unnecessary days in hospital for long-stayers by 36% and halve the number of patients occupying a hospital bed for 21 days or more, compared with the England average.
It is these real benefits that an FDP will bring for patients and clinicians that have seen the chief executives of all 42 integrated care boards sign up to an open statement of support for the procurement.
Every hospital and integrated care board will have its own version of the platform which can connect and collaborate with other data platforms as a “federation”. In the first contract year, investment is expected to be at least £25.6 million and over the total contractual period of seven years, there will be up to £330 million investment in the Federated Data Platform and associated services. Learning about how to make the roll-out to trusts as efficient as possible will be built in overtime to reduce costs.
Additional funding has been set aside for other organisations to bid in separate, future procurements to build new products on to the platform that are interoperable and provide the opportunity for the NHS to benefit from new innovations from a range of suppliers. This makes it easier for health and care organisations to work together, compare data, analyse it at different geographic, demographic and organisational levels, and share and spread new effective digital solutions.
The contract will not only benefit users of the NHS; it will see investment in the UK-based data industry: the contract includes the creation by the supplier of a hub in the north-west. Data will not leave the UK.
Contract award for the FDP is the first stage of the process. An advisory group made up of expert health and care stakeholders, as well as patients and regional system representatives, will help to shape how the FDP is implemented. NHS England has already carried out engagement on the FDP requirements, including with patient and professional representative bodies. Ongoing public engagement is planned throughout the period of the contract, including as part of a recently announced circa £2 million national programme of engagement on the use of health data.
Further information on the FDP can be found on NHS England’s webpages at:
https://www.england.nhs.uk/digitaltechnology/digitising-connecting-and-transforming-health-and-care/fdp-faqs.
[HCWS57]
Correction to Question 203779 in 2022-23 Session
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
In the 2022-2023 parliamentary session, the Ministry of Justice responded to a PQ (203779) in relation to the amount of non-cash vouchers awarded to staff as performance related bonuses in the financial years 2022-23 and 2021-22, identified in the Department’s workforce management information as members of the Core Ministers Department. For reference, as previously noted in the original answer, the Core Ministerial Department had a total of 7,613 employees as of June 2023.
The figure provided for the financial year 2022-23, was inaccurate and an error. This figure was incorrectly calculated, when collating numerous data sources and interrogating them utilising complex Excel formula functions.
We previously stated:
For the Financial Year 2022-23, a total of £425,551 was made to the Core Ministerial Department staff.
However, upon recalculation, the accurate figure can be found below:
For the Financial Year 2022-23, a total of £684,976 was made to the Core Ministerial Department staff.
This does not change the total figure provided for the entire Department which remains correct.
I am apologising for this error and clarifying the position in relation to performance related bonuses, provided as non-cash vouchers. For reference, the Department takes its responsibility for parliamentary accountability very seriously and has reviewed and amended the process for checking responses to parliamentary questions to ensure future accuracy.
[HCWS54]
Motoring Executive Agency Business Plans: 2023-24
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Mark Harper)
I am pleased to announce the publication of the 2023-24 business plans for the Department for Transport’s Motoring Agencies: the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA), and the Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA).
Each agency’s business plan sets out:
The key business priorities that each agency will deliver and any significant changes they plan to make to their services, and
the key performance indicators, by which their performance will be assessed.
These plans allow service users and members of the public to understand the agencies’ plans for delivering their key services, progressing their transformation programmes, and managing their finances.
The business plans will be available electronically on www.gov.uk and copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS55]
House of Lords
Introduction: The Lord Bishop of Lincoln
Local Government Finance
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on local government finance of increasing demand for emergency and temporary accommodation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Penn) (Con)
Local authorities deliver vital homelessness services and we recognise that the increasing demand for temporary accommodation places pressures on councils. That is why, taking together the 2022-23 and 2023-24 local government finance settlements, we have increased the funding available to local government in England in real terms. In addition, we are providing over £1 billion to councils over three years through the homelessness prevention grant.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister to her new role and greatly look forward to working with her. Please can we express our very best wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her continuing recovery?
There has been a rapid and dramatic increase in homelessness, with over 104,000 households currently in temporary accommodation—the highest number since records began in 1998. This created a budget pressure of £1.6 billion for councils in 2021-22. So many well-respected sector experts, including the Local Government Association, the District Councils’ Network, Citizens Advice, Crisis and London Councils, have made representations to the Chancellor in advance of the Autumn Statement, pointing out that the key drivers of this increase are the failure to upgrade local housing allowance in line with inflation and a spike in Section 21 evictions. What assessment have the Government carried out of the impact of the freeze on local housing allowance?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, as with all benefits, we keep the local housing allowance under review. The noble Baroness also mentioned Section 21 evictions, which, as she knows, are being reformed through the forthcoming Renters (Reform) Bill that is making its way through the other place and which we will see here shortly. I return her welcome and look forward to working with her across the Dispatch Box. I also look forward to my noble friend Lady Scott joining me back on the Front Benches soon.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, throwing asylum seekers out of hotel accommodation at short notice only moves the issue to local councils, which are legally obliged to accommodate asylum seekers while their asylum applications are processed. What assessment have the Government made of the total cost of this unacceptable cost-shunting to local authorities?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I would not agree with the noble Lord’s characterisation of the situation at all. While people’s asylum applications are being processed, they are in Home Office-provided accommodation. Some of that accommodation is hotel accommodation, which is in no one’s interest—not that of the people who are accommodated there nor that of the taxpayer. The Government are working hard to reduce the backlog in asylum applications and to move people on from hotel accommodation. My department is working closely with the Home Office and local councils to make sure that that process is as smooth as possible.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, Lord Campbell-Savours is participating remotely.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
Why should people pay inflated rents to private landlords who are coining it in conditions of scarcity? Is not the answer to secure selectively land for housing development at agricultural prices, as has happened in parts of Europe, in particular Germany, and to back up that land purchase policy with a mass building programme of housing for both rent and purchase, but under a new form of title which restricts speculative gains and yet protects the value of freehold title? Speculative markets in land are denying millions a home.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I believe that part of the solution to this problem is an increase in supply and quality in the private rented sector, which our Renters (Reform) Bill will help to deliver, and also in the affordable housing and social housing sectors. That is why this Government have put so much money into the affordable housing programme, to increase the supply of that housing and relieve the pressure that we see on temporary accommodation.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
Following on from the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, will the Minister impress on her colleagues in the Home Office the urgent need to review the current operation of the move-on period for newly recognised refugees, which is forcing many of them into rough sleeping and homelessness? They have been given as little as seven days’ notice to quit their Home Office asylum accommodation, with serious knock-on effects on local authorities also.
Baroness Penn (Con)
As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, my department is working closely with the Home Office and local councils to ensure that the process for moving people on from hotel accommodation is as smooth as possible. As I also said, we recognise that the work that we are doing successfully to reduce the backlog in asylum claims puts pressure on other parts of the system, which is why we have increased resources there too.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
Both the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, have raised the really troubling issue of asylum seekers leaving accommodation and being made homeless. In the Government’s strategy, Ending Rough Sleeping for Good, there was talk about having a transparent and joined-up system. What plans do His Majesty’s Government have to ensure that homelessness policy and asylum policy are working together so that we can minimise this dreadful problem?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, as I have said, my department is working closely with the Home Office and local authorities on this issue. Local authorities have already moved thousands of families out of bridging accommodation and into long-term accommodation. We are also providing £750 million to the local authority housing fund, which is being used to buy or create new housing stock to accommodate, for example, Ukrainian and Afghan refugees who have been offered refuge here and now need somewhere to move on to. But it will also help to improve temporary accommodation for families owed a homelessness duty. That is an example of some of the longer-term action that we are seeking to take to alleviate some of these pressures.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
Are the Government thinking of supporting prefab houses, and if not, why not?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government are a big supporter of modern methods of construction, which I think is the broad equivalent of prefab houses. We seek to see more houses built using those methods of construction. As the noble and learned Baroness knows, it can be a very efficient way in which to produce new homes.
Lord Naseby (Con)
I welcome my noble friend to her new role. I suspect that every Member of your Lordships’ House is aware that there is a chronic shortage of accommodation and in the supply of social housing. Against that background, now that she is in a position to have a look at the whole of this area, I hope my noble friend takes time to do that, and see in particular whether we can bring forward more social housing to address the huge need that we have at this difficult time.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right that there are a number of different actions that we need to take to address homelessness. We have the action on homelessness prevention strategy and the rough sleeping strategy; that is backed by more than £2 billion over three years, in addition to the increase in councils’ core budgets that I mentioned at the beginning. But we also need to look at the underlying supply of affordable and social homes, which is why we have the affordable homes programme in place. We are committed that that will continue to deliver large increases in the number of affordable homes available in this country.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, last year, local authorities spent £1.5 billion on temporary accommodation, which is up by 9% from the previous years. This is just one of the reasons that so many councils are on the brink of bankruptcy. When will this nightmare come to an end? It is cut after cut, since 2010. When will it end, and when will local government get some help?
Baroness Penn (Con)
The noble Lord talks about cut after cut. Since 2019, local authorities have had a real-terms increase in their core spending power, taking into account higher levels of inflation than anticipated at the time. In addition to that, we have provided money for the homelessness prevention grant and the rough sleeping strategy, and in addition to that we have provided the £750 million that I referred to in answer to the right reverend Prelate to begin to address some of the longer-term solutions to how we address housing supply in our country.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, there are avenues that the Government are not exploring. We have an increasing amount of retail accommodation which is now empty and an increasing amount of office space in many cities which is not being utilised. What is the Government’s policy around trying to put that to good social purpose? Why are they not thinking about trying to create public-private partnerships to use those, rather than worrying too much about looking to new builds?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I believe that that is the case. The Government are committed to revitalising our high streets, whether that is rejuvenating existing commercial property or making the best use of it in the local circumstances.
Low-traffic Neighbourhoods
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what are the health benefits of low traffic neighbourhoods.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Davies of Gower) (Con)
My Lords, when implemented well and with good community engagement, low-traffic neighbourhoods can improve air quality and bring the obvious health benefits of increased cycling and walking. The Government continue to promote traffic management that enables more choice in how people make their journeys. That is why we are carrying out a review to ensure that, where they exist, low-traffic neighbourhoods are delivering the attractive choices for active travel that we all want to see.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that reply and welcome him to his new post, but why did the Prime Minister order a review of low-traffic neighbourhoods? I quote from the Telegraph:
“I just want to make sure people know that I’m on their side in supporting them to use their cars to do all the things that matter to them”.
Does that not include the health of their family, or does the car come first?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his welcome. On 30 June, the Prime Minister announced a review of low-traffic neighbourhoods to be carried out by the Department for Transport. The review is intended to focus on the processes for creating low-traffic neighbourhoods, including understanding the consultation and engagement processes that were followed for such schemes and the views of local communities impacted by them. The review will focus on the schemes installed since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic and will not look at historical street layouts.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, I too welcome my noble friend to his new role, one that I covet somewhat, having previously been a transport director for this city at City Hall. On low-traffic neighbourhoods, one of the challenges we faced in this city was managing the balance between safety, economic policy and keeping the city moving when implementing policies, especially on the roads. So, on low-traffic neighbourhoods and 20 mph zones, do the Government approve of a blanket approach to this type of policy, or does it have to be a bit more sophisticated?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that question. As a resident of Wales, I can speak with some experience on this. The Government are very concerned about excessive vehicle speeds and believe that any form of dangerous or inconsiderate driving behaviour is a serious road safety issue. The power to impose 20 mph speed limits rests totally with local traffic authorities and I emphasise that the Government support 20 mph limits in the right places. We do not, however, support 20 mph limits set indiscriminately on all roads in England, with due regard to the safety case and local support. The Transport Secretary announced The Plan for Drivers in October, which included an assurance that we will update the 20 mph speed limit guidance for England to prevent inappropriate blanket use.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that in Oxford LTNs have been bitterly divisive and a disaster? Teachers are resigning because they cannot get to school; shopkeepers, often of ethnic minority, are closing shops; ambulances cannot get through. Will the Minister ensure that locals are given the truth? So often, we are not told that the pollution displaced from one road simply moves to another. We need to insist that local authorities give us the true scientific picture.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a very good point. We are aware of the Oxford situation and I fully support what she said.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord to his new role. My question very much follows from the previous one. What are the Government doing to ensure that local authorities undertake frequent and systematic monitoring of air quality, not just in low-traffic neighbourhoods but in traffic hotspots, to ensure that they pursue traffic reduction measures in general and not just in certain targeted areas?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her kind words. Transport is the largest source of greenhouse gases in the UK, with domestic transport accounting for some 26% of all emissions in 2021. Road vehicles produce over 90% of transport’s domestic carbon emissions, so the transition to electric vehicles is a clear priority as well as an opportunity to grow the economy. We will end the sale of all new petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2035. From 2040, all new HGVs will be fully zero-emission.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister to his new role—this is a blood sport and he is the fox. Local authorities held accountable to residents at elections are best placed to decide how to manage traffic in their communities, yet we are now more than four months into a Whitehall-led review of the implementation of low-traffic neighbourhoods. Can the Minister explain how much this review process is costing, what value added is expected and whether the Government are contemplating primary legislation?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
The review is focusing on fact-finding to ensure that these schemes work for residents, businesses and emergency services and enable more choice in how people make their journeys. We expect the review to report back in early 2024, after which the Government will consider its findings and any necessary next steps to ensure that the schemes deliver the objectives they set out and take account of communities’ views.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, I very much welcome the review that my noble friend has outlined and, like others, I welcome him to his new role. My concern is with air pollution levels, particularly when linked to health. Among young children, allergies, bronchitis and asthma are very much on the increase. Can this be taken into consideration in the review so that we can understand the impact of pollution on health?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that excellent question. The latest published emission figures show that air pollution has reduced significantly since 2010—emissions of nitrogen oxide are down by 45%. Under the nitrogen dioxide plan, we are supporting 64 local authorities with £883 million of funding specifically to develop and implement measures to address their nitrogen oxide exceedances in the shortest possible time.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, there is time for both the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, afterwards.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will be picking up from his predecessor the portfolio about glare from oncoming headlights. Given the effect of this, the 20 miles per hour speed limit is really important, because eyes do not adjust enough to glare. Will the Minister meet me and others on this continuing issue of glare so that we can move forward on it?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I know that this issue is of particular interest to the noble Baroness. I would be delighted to meet her.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I welcome the noble Lord. Can the review look at the detrimental mental health harms of being forced, for example, to take three times as long to take the kids to school or the disabled and elderly being unable to get taxis from or deliveries to their doors due to LTNs, and the health impacts of heavily congested roads and LTNs? Will the Minister look at a new report, “Clean” Air, Dirty Money, Filthy Politics, which looks at the distorting influence of big money on the science and health evidence? We need to say that there are bad health effects of some of these anti-car policies.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I take on board what she says, and I cannot disagree with it. There is nothing wrong with driving. Most of us use a car, and for many, life would not be liveable without one, but I take on board exactly what the noble Baroness says.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I add my own congratulations to a retired detective who has been put in charge of traffic, which is truly a remarkable promotion. What plans do the Government have to ensure that cyclists do not exceed 20 mph in the low- traffic zones or, frankly, anywhere else that they choose to break the law?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his kind words. He makes a very good point, and it is something, perhaps, that the Metropolitan Police should take good note of.
Mental Health Act 1983
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bradley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to reform the Mental Health Act 1983.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
We are committed to improving the care and treatment of people detained under the Mental Health Act, including taking forward non-legislative commitments such as culturally appropriate advocacy, as well as continuing to expand and transform NHS mental health services. I am grateful to the noble Lord and his colleagues on the Joint Committee for their work on the Bill to date, and I assure him that it remains our intention to bring forward a Bill when parliamentary time allows.
Lord Bradley (Lab)
My Lords, for over six years, the Government have promised to reform the 1983 Act, from manifesto commitments to the Wessely report, draft Bills and consultations, and now the Joint Committee which reported to this House in January of this year— 11 months ago. Then, to the astonishment and no little anger of thousands of people with mental ill health, autism and learning disabilities, who have been supported by their tremendous advocates, there has been deafening silence from the Government. Now the proposed Bill has been completely dropped from the legislative programme. There is a real feeling of frustration across the country about this situation. Will the Minister now give a real explanation so that we can try and restore the breakdown of trust that has come about from this situation?
Lord Markham (Con)
I understand the frustration and disappointment about the fact that the Bill has not been brought forward. I am keen to focus on what we can do in the meantime. Of course the Bill is trying to decrease the rate of detention and, within that, decrease the racial disparities, such as the fact that a black person is four times more likely to be detained than a white person. There are a number of things that I hope we will be able to discuss more, particularly in the debates on Thursday as well, such as the things we have introduced in pilots, like the culturally appropriate advocacy. That really can make a difference here and now.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
As the chairman of the inquiry, I reassure noble Lords that my noble friend the Minister is very aware of our frustration. However, I am pleased to hear—I am sure others are too—that, along with others in the department, he is looking to see what we can achieve without primary legislation. Could he and his officials focus on the further development and implementation of, for example, advanced choice documents, which would really make a difference to the dignity and choice that people with mental health issues thoroughly deserve? Could he also, as he touched on, really research and respond to why a highly disproportionate number of black men are unfairly detained?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank my noble friend for her question and for her work on this. The advanced choice documents are a perfect example, like a birth plan, of where people can put in place what their hopes are for the future. There are good examples at King’s College and at South London and Maudsley of what they are doing in this direction, and I am really keen to learn from those and expand them further. I am also keen to invite all the participants to a round table that Mental Health Minister Caulfield has agreed as well, where we can really talk about the action that we can take on the ground to implement as many things as we can to rectify the problems in this space.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, 40 years ago, as a young consultant psychiatrist, I argued against the inclusion of learning disabilities and autism in the 1983 Act—it is out of date; these are not mental disorders. Does the Minister agree that it is time to take this Bill forward seriously?
Lord Markham (Con)
We are all agreed on the intent behind what we were trying to do with the Bill. On learning difficulties and autism, the most important thing we are trying to do is to make sure that the CQC, within 48 hours of a person being put into segregation, is investigating and doing an independent review on whether that is the best place for them. Like the noble Baroness, I share the feeling—we all think it—that it is much better that they are treated in the community, where they can be.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, mental health legislation relies on good data; we do not have good enough data about the detention of people from different groups. Does the Minister agree with the committee that a step forward that could be taken now is the appointment of a responsible person in each organisation with a duty to record not only the detention of people under the Mental Health Act but the demographic data surrounding it?
Lord Markham (Con)
Yes. The data, and fundamentally understanding what is beneath it, is key to all this. We have put an executive lead on each trust board to look at exactly these sorts of issues, including the data, so I am happy to take that forward.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, the provisions of the Mental Health Act have no clear definition of a safe place in which a sectioned patient may be taken while awaiting medical assessment. That often results in vulnerable people being taken to police stations and forcibly detained by the police. What assessment have the Government made of the frequency of this continuing due to the Government’s failure to reform the Mental Health Act—something that Labour, if we win the next election, will put right? How will the Government ensure that patients are no longer detained in such inappropriate and punitive environments?
Lord Markham (Con)
I appreciate the feeling that our response on minimal standards—in our reply, I think, to the report by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins —did not go far enough to make sure that those patients are in the right quality setting for them, so the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, has made an important point. I was going through with the team what we can do to make sure that that is right. As I mentioned before, the fact that the CQC now has responsibility for those independent reviews will mean that it will look not only at whether it is right that the patients are in those in-patient environments but at whether it is the right environment as an actual place.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the committee heard about disproportionality, particularly with community treatment orders, which are about 11 times more likely to be imposed on someone from an ethnic-minority background. Can my noble friend the Minister look at that, and maybe meet with colleagues in other departments to see whether there is a legislative opportunity to sort that out by putting that provision into a different piece of legislation?
Lord Markham (Con)
Yes. I have tried to get into this further, and my understanding is that lot of the trouble is that there is often a fear from black and ethnic-minority people of the existing institutions that can help people early on. As we all know, with mental health difficulties, we have to act quickly. A lot of this is about getting everyone in society open to the idea that the earlier they can go to these sorts of places, instead of trying to brave their way through, the better. That is one of the key things to do to make sure that we do not then see problems down the pipeline, including the disparity whereby a black person is 11 times more likely to have community reviews and the disparity in detentions.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I think that other noble Lords will welcome the idea of sitting down at a round table to look at the future. In particular, what do the Government intend to do to invest in children’s and adolescents’ mental health services to make them accessible in schools? Early intervention will prevent a high proportion of people needing to be sectioned later on.
Lord Markham (Con)
The noble Baroness is absolutely correct. With the mental health units to detect problems early, we are now at around 35%; last year it was only 25% but in the next 18 months or so we should be at 50%, which is higher than ever before. I freely accept that 50% is not 100% but it is clearly a step in the right direction. The £2.3 billion investment we are putting in means 350,000 extra places for young people as well.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
The Government keep telling us that they plan to take other measures to improve mental health outcomes in the absence of the legislation. I hope the Minister will understand why, having been let down on the promised Bill, we want to see the colour of the Government’s money. Can he go back to his department and ask it to produce a list, with details and dates, of all the measures it intends to take to improve mental health practices via statutory instrument and new guidance in this parliamentary Session?
Lord Markham (Con)
Yes. I am happy for the noble Lord to come to the round table and put those points himself as well.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My noble friend will be aware that autism is not a mental health condition but a communication disorder. However, of course like everybody else, people on the autistic spectrum can develop mental health problems as well. What assessment has the department made or could it make, quite urgently, of just how able and experienced psychiatrists around the country are at disaggregating between an autistic person having a meltdown and a mental health condition? If they get it wrong, as often happens, the consequences of the treatment that follows are devastating.
Lord Markham (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely correct, and from personal experience I know the importance of getting that early diagnosis right. I am quite happy to write in detail exactly what we are doing in this space.
Rwanda: Asylum Arrangements Treaty
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Goldsmith
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have for ratification of the proposed asylum arrangements treaty with the government of Rwanda, as announced by the Prime Minister on 15 November; and whether they intend the treaty to be subject to scrutiny by Parliament for 21 days under the provisions of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, the Government will lay a treaty before both Houses of Parliament in due course. This will enable Parliament to consider Rwanda as safe, in conjunction with new legislation announced by the Prime Minister. We will follow standard procedure as per the CRaG Act.
Lord Goldsmith (Lab)
I am grateful for that Answer and for the confirmation that this time, the treaty will be put through the CRaG process. That will mean that Parliament will be able to scrutinise the agreement and consider the relevant policy considerations, and indeed the financial implications, unlike the memorandum of understanding, which the International Agreements Committee of this House previously said was deeply concerning because that scrutiny was not available. Can the Minister also tell us when the CRaG notice will be given so that that process can start, and when the relevant Minister will come to the committee to give evidence?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am afraid I do not have that detail because the Bill has yet to be presented to Parliament. However, as I understand it, the timeframe is 21 days after laying, when both Houses are sitting, for the treaty process to take effect.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, for the purposes of assessing the safety of a country, a theoretical commitment to treaty obligations is not sufficient? What counts is the performance of those obligations, which requires a period of assessment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My noble friend asked me a very similar question yesterday and I will give a very similar answer, which is that I am unable to predict what is likely to be in the legislation that is yet to be presented to Parliament.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that, if a committee of this House—the International Agreements Committee or indeed the relevant committee in the other place—under CRaG, were to make a report for debate, the Government would not proceed to ratification of the treaty unless and until that debate had taken place?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Again, the noble Lord is asking me to speculate on something that has not yet happened, and I am afraid I do not see the point of that.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, are the Government intent on making any payment to the Government of Rwanda for converting their MoU into a treaty, and have the Government provided any support to the Rwandan Government in the last 12 months for the training of their officials in the immigration department?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Again, as I said yesterday, in answer to the second part of the noble Lord’s question, the answer is yes. As regards the costs, I have no knowledge of that.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, this proposal is both an expensive distraction and a delusion. Is it not true that even the far-right Prime Minister of Italy has proposals that would mean processing offshore but with Italian immigration officers, and those adjudged to be legitimate asylum seekers would then be returned to Italy? If we cannot manage something the far right in Italy can, what sort of people are we?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am not sure I would characterise the Prime Minister of Italy as far right, to be perfectly honest.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
This is a personal opinion, my Lords. Having said that, of course, I am also not going to speculate about what other countries may be doing. I notice that a number of other countries are exploring possibilities very similar to those we are looking at.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, have not the Falkland Islands been considered as an alternative to Rwanda, and what progress has been made with that proposal?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I read that story in the papers, and I have no idea.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
My Lords, did not the Supreme Court make a finding of fact that Rwanda had broken similar agreements in the past with the Government of Israel and that the state of the Government in Rwanda did not give rise to any confidence that they would comply with the agreement we have made? How does a treaty affect that at all? Are the Government capable of taking any steps that make the Government of Rwanda look more capable, and are the Government searching for another safe country that can be trusted, which seems to me the only way in which this policy can possibly be continued with any hope of success?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, that gives me an opportunity to reflect again on what the court said:
“changes and capacity-building needed to eliminate the risk”—
of refoulement—
“may be delivered in future, but they were not shown to be in place when the lawfulness of the policy had to be considered in these proceedings”.
The fact was that those proceedings considered one day —14 June 2022. Much has changed since then, so I think we should wait to see what the legislation says.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, yesterday, the Minister could not answer a number of questions regarding the proposed treaty ratification process—its consents legislation —despite his usual courtesies. Was he aware that the same day he was speaking, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, was pictured carrying the returns (removal to Rwanda) Bill into Downing Street with the date of 19 November on it? I think we could do with knowing whether the Minister was aware of the contents of that Bill. Can he confirm that the Bill will have a proper, full ratification process, not contain suggestions such as the Falkland Islands, which we have heard about, as a fallback position, and also respect international law—or does he need to consult the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, before he answers?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I would also note that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, asked me an incredibly unhelpful question on another subject yesterday, so that is a win double. Actually, I was not aware of any of the contents of whatever may or may not have been in the folder of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that entirely legal immigration, encouraged by his Government, is roughly eight or 10 times the number of illegal migrants, to which this Question is addressed?
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
The Minister did not answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Clarke. According to the Telegraph, Lord Sumption warned that a new treaty would not prove the country was safe, as Rwanda does not have the institutional strength to observe its own treaty obligations. What changes have happened to give the Government the belief that it has the strength to fulfil its treaty obligations?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Again, the noble Baroness is speculating as to what may or may not be in the legislation, which no one has yet seen—apart, perhaps, from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. However, I would also note that there are 135,000 refugees in Rwanda as we speak.
Lord Popat (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Rwanda. I was appointed in 2014 by the then Prime Minister, who I am delighted to see on our Front Bench today—my noble friend Lord Cameron. In dealing with Rwanda for the past nine years, I have found the Government to be very honest, transparent and forthcoming. I am sure my noble friend will agree that whatever agreement we reach with the Rwandan Government, they will show due respect for it, but, most important, for the asylum seekers.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank my noble friend very much indeed for that question, and I agree with the sentiments behind it. The Rwandans have behaved with great dignity in the face of some provocation.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, in answering the question from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, the Minister did not give the answer that I think we were hoping for. I know that it is not the Minister’s department, but when the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone—he is probably here—was in the Department for International Trade, “the Grimstone rule” was agreed. It said that, where a committee asked for a debate, it would be given. I hope that the Minister’s department will act as honourably as the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, did when he was a Minister and that that debate will be given.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I will certainly make sure that the noble Baroness’s comments are reflected back to the department.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, it may have escaped the Minister’s attention that a schedule to the then Illegal Migration Bill had Rwanda down as a safe country. It also listed another 20 or so countries that the Government deemed safe through that legislation. What assessment have the Government made of those countries in the light of the Supreme Court’s judgment?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the Supreme Court’s judgment was specific to Rwanda, so we should leave it at discussing Rwanda for now.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, given that so many other countries have issues similar to our own, can my noble friend the Minister update the House on any conversations about an international agreement, perhaps under UK leadership, to deal with this issue on a wider basis?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
As we discussed at the Dispatch Box yesterday, those sorts of discussions are clearly going to have to take place at some point. Again, that question would perhaps be more appropriately directed at my noble friend the Foreign Secretary.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister indicate whether the provisions in the new Rwanda treaty will adhere to the ECHR, which underpins our Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, as I say, I cannot comment on the specifics at the moment. However, I reiterate the Prime Minister’s commitment to stopping the boats and removing barriers if necessary. The detail and implications of doing so will be considered carefully; of course, that will take the GFA into account.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, that concludes Oral Questions for today. We now come to some formal business, so if any noble Lord would like to leave, now is the time to do it.
Arbitration Bill [HL]
Tuesday 21st November 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Arbitration Bill [HL] 2023-24 View all Arbitration Bill [HL] 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text
Employment and Trade Union Rights (Dismissal and Re-engagement) Bill [HL]
Tuesday 21st November 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment and Trade Union Rights (Dismissal and Re-engagement) Bill [HL] 2023-24 View all Employment and Trade Union Rights (Dismissal and Re-engagement) Bill [HL] 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text
Housing Act 1998 (Amendment) Bill [HL]
Tuesday 21st November 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Housing Act 1988 (Amendment) Bill [HL] 2023-24 View all Housing Act 1988 (Amendment) Bill [HL] 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text
Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill [HL]
Tuesday 21st November 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Act 2024 View all Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton
That the Bill be now read a second time.
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton) (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Johnson of Lainston, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
It is truly an honour to stand at this Dispatch Box and make my maiden speech in this House. I have always respected the work that is done here, so often a patient, diligent and considered complement to the other place. I hope to play a full part in your Lordships’ House. Indeed, I was in the other place for only 15 years, 11 of which were as leader of the Opposition or Prime Minister, so I hope that I can look forward to many more years in this House. When I look at the ornate, carved wooden panels that surround us and compare them with my now infamous shepherd’s hut, I can tell your Lordships that this is already a significant upgrade.
I thank my introducers—the Lord Privy Seal, my noble friend Lord True, and the Government Chief Whip, my noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford. I have to admit that I recommended them both for the peerage. Indeed, I am in what Margaret Thatcher described in her maiden speech here as a
“delicate position … responsible as Prime Minister for proposing the elevation to this House”—[Official Report, 2/7/1992; col. 897.]
of quite so many of its current Members. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for my part in putting—how can I put it?—space here at a premium. I note that the Liberal Democrat Benches are particularly full. I always said to my Deputy Prime Minister, partner and friend Nick Clegg that his party would feel the benefit of participating in the coalition for many years to come. I just did not predict exactly how that would manifest itself. I also thank Black Rod, the doorkeepers, the police and other staff for facilitating my introduction yesterday and for warmly welcoming me back to Parliament.
I first set foot in this place as a teenager in the 1980s, when I worked briefly as a parliamentary researcher. I watched from the Gallery as Lord Macmillan, aged 90 and leaning elegantly on a stick, delivered his maiden speech. It was a thoughtful, measured evisceration of the late Lady Thatcher’s Government and their handling of the miners’ strike. I intend no such censure for my successor in 10 Downing Street. Indeed, wanting to serve under Rishi Sunak, whom I believe is a strong and capable Prime Minister, was one of the reasons why I accepted his offer of this role.
I had two former party leaders in my Cabinet, alongside many veterans of Tory leadership campaigns, one of whom was the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, and I valued all their advice. I hope that some of my experience will help the Prime Minister in meeting the vital challenges that we face as a country. That said, it was a surprise to be asked. I have not been sitting like some latter-day de Gaulle at Colombey-les-Deux-Églises waiting to be asked—how shall I put it?—to take back control. Nor am I Cincinnatus, hovering over my plough. I leave all classical allusions—and illusions, for that matter—to another former Prime Minister with whom I shared a number of educational experiences.
There is a strong precedent for Members of this House from all parties serving in the Cabinet—Peter Carington, Alec Douglas-Home and, more recently, the noble Lords, Lord Mandelson, Lord Adonis and Lord Frost, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes. Like all of them, I respect the primacy of the other place. As tradition dictates, a Secretary of State who sits in the Lords is mirrored by the most senior Minister in their department. That Minister is the right honourable Andrew Mitchell MP, who will deputise for me in the other place. I believe that he will do an excellent job.
I look forward to answering noble Lords’ Questions monthly and will appear before all the relevant committees. I recognise my responsibilities to this House and am happy to consider other appropriate mechanisms so that Parliament is able to scrutinise all the work of my department.
The noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, sent me a particularly charming welcome, but he pointed out that I am a comeback novice, as this is only my first compared with his three. I suppose my response should be to point out that to make three comebacks you need both his prodigious talent and to be sacked twice by the Prime Minister, which is a fate I hope to avoid.
I take my seat bearing the title of Chipping Norton. In fact, the first message I received after my appointment was from the vicar’s wife, making sure that I would take the town’s name, but I am not claiming divine intervention; it was an easy choice. This beautiful place is one of the west Oxfordshire towns I represented in Parliament. It is the place where I brought up my children and the place our family still considers home.
The Chippy Larder food project, where I volunteered for over two years after the start of the pandemic, will have to manage without me for a while. Last year, three of us loaded up a lorry full of food, clothes and supplies, and drove it to the Red Cross centre on the Polish-Ukrainian border. Our leader was Rizvana Poole who, Members will be pleased to hear in a House that values cross-party collaboration, is one of the town’s Labour councillors.
It was a privilege to make my first visit as Foreign Secretary to Ukraine last week. I told the President how much we all admire the bravery and fortitude of the Ukrainian people. We will stand with them for as long as it takes. I was proud to hear him describe Britain as their best partner in their struggle.
His country’s plight is a reminder of the great challenges we face. The things we take for granted— freedom, the rule of law, democracy—are under threat across the world. These are daunting times: invasion in Europe, war in the Middle East, climate change, growing world poverty, illegal migration, threats of terrorism and new pandemics. It has never been clearer that our domestic security depends upon global security.
We must approach these challenges from a position of strength. Our Foreign Office, Diplomatic Service, intelligence services, and aid and development capabilities are some of the finest assets of their kind anywhere in the world, and I have seen at first hand the professionalism, passion and patriotism of the people who staff them. I know that they have been expertly and diligently represented in this House for many years by my noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, with whom I am proud to work.
As Prime Minister, I learned that the respect we command overseas also depends on success at home. We certainly did not get everything right but, over six years, we smashed some of the big political orthodoxies. We showed that you can grow the economy and cut carbon emissions, cut the deficit and create jobs, achieve the best school results in the poorest areas and start to build a society that is multi-ethnic, multiracial, proud and patriotic. Today, with a British-Indian Prime Minister at our helm, we have a good opportunity to do all those things and ensure that we stand taller and stronger in the world.
I turn to the subject of today’s debate. The UK will join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, otherwise known as CPTPP. This Bill helps to make that happen. This is an age of rapid growth in the Indo-Pacific region, and the political shifts we face are the first reason to support this Bill. Countries in the Indo-Pacific are expected to drive the majority of global growth between now and 2050. I want to continue this Government’s work to deepen our relationships with this region and support shared security and prosperity.
We have signed the AUKUS pact with the US and Australia, and the Hiroshima accord with Japan. We have become a dialogue partner of ASEAN and agreed ground-breaking digital deals with Singapore. Membership of this vast global trade area is the next vital step on this journey, putting the UK at the heart of a group of some of the world’s most dynamic economies. It will bring us even closer on pressing challenges such as climate change, give us a new impetus to influence geopolitical competition around rules and norms, and help diversify our supply chains and therefore support our economic resilience.
The second reason for passing this Bill is the economic benefit this deal brings to the UK. Britain will join 11 countries spanning Asia and the Americas, with a combined population of 500 million people. We will have access to a combined GDP of nearly £12 trillion—15% of global GDP. This deal positions British companies to expand in new markets, giving us, for instance, our first trade deal with Malaysia—an economy worth almost £330 billion last year. It means more than 99% of the UK’s current exports to other members become eligible for tariff-free trade. The deal’s ambitious service provisions should also boost the £32 billion of services that British firms already sold to these countries last year.
UK businesses will be operating more on a par with local firms. Red tape can be cut and data localisation requirements removed. Traders will have more certainty, and it looks set to increase our attractiveness to global finance, even as competition for capital grows ever more intense.
Investors such as Japanese firm Fujitsu, an employer of more than 7,000 people here in Britain, see great promise from the deal. Free trade is good for British businesses, creating new opportunities and spurring innovation. I firmly believe that it benefits British consumers as well. Tariff reductions mean cheaper import prices, better choice and higher quality on a whole range of things, whether it is fruit juice from Peru or vacuum cleaners from Malaysia.
The final reason for deserving your Lordships’ support is the precise scope of the Bill. While the deal itself is wide-ranging, in many areas it does not require comprehensive UK legislation. The Bill therefore focuses on those few areas where we need primary legislation to meet our new obligations.
First, it covers technical barriers to trade. Conformity assessment bodies such as the British Standards Institution exist to assure consumers that a product meets certain standards. The Bill will allow for conformity assessment bodies established in other participating countries to apply for approval here in the UK, but I can assure noble Lords that these provisions will not change British product standards.
Next, on government procurement, the Bill will ensure that suppliers from participating countries have access on an equal footing to those UK procurements covered by the agreement. We have responded to the devolved Administrations’ previous concerns about the use of concurrent powers in such Bills by drafting these provisions in consultation with them. I believe that shows our commitment to working across all nations of the UK to forge a common approach.
Finally, on intellectual property, the Bill will align our approach to copyright with that of other members. For instance, it will expand the basis on which foreign performers can qualify for rights here in the UK. It will also align our approach to geographical indications and designations of origin, which I am happy to say is good news for things such as Lincolnshire sausages, Cheddar cheese and of course Scotch whisky.
In each of these specific areas, UK bodies and businesses will benefit from corresponding treatment in other participating countries. The Bill therefore reduces a whole series of complex obstacles to trade, including copyright, patent, standards and public procurement. These points are often underappreciated, but they will benefit UK businesses and consumers alike.
Noble Lords may well ask whether these benefits come at the expense of things we should hold dear. I believe that this is not the case, and I want to run through some of the concerns that have been expressed. Will it lower our own high standards on food and product safety, animal welfare, the environment or workers’ rights? No, we will change none of these in order to accede, and we will continue to set our own standards here in the UK. What about the issue of undercutting farmers? We have negotiated both quotas and transitional safeguards for agricultural imports. The National Farmers’ Union president, Minette Batters, has spoken of the deal’s potential, as she put it,
“to get more fantastic British food on plates overseas”.
There are often concerns expressed about the NHS and so-called privatisation by the back door. Let me be clear; the NHS and its services were never on the table in these negotiations. If you want to see the Government do more in this Pacific region to end unsustainable palm oil farming or to champion human rights, this agreement will increase UK influence in the region, which we can bring to bear on all of these vital issues.
Ultimately, we retain flexibility with this deal. We will continue to set our standards, determine our foreign policy and make the trade arrangements that best suit us with others in the future.
I look forward to hearing as much as possible of the forthcoming debate. I might have to be excused before it ends, should business continue into the evening, to welcome the President of South Korea at the state banquet hosted by His Majesty the King. The Opposition Front Bench has been very generous and understanding on this point, and I want to thank them. I also thank my noble friend Lord Johnson of Lainston, who has brought enormous private sector experience into the Government. He has led the work on this Bill and will respond to all your Lordships’ questions when closing.
This is a narrow Bill, but the benefits are considerable. With others queuing up to join the CPTPP, the Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, has ensured that the UK got in there first. The deal offers possibilities for our whole country, from distilleries in Dorset to AI pioneers in Wales, car part manufacturers in Northern Ireland and digital forensic experts in Scotland. It is an investment in a brighter future—and I should know, because I was the future once.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his maiden speech to this House and of course welcome him back to Parliament. I can reassure him on one vital point: the Opposition are at one with the Government on support for Ukraine and that will continue. This Parliament is united and this country is united on that issue.
To pick up one of the points the noble Lord mentioned, in his last PMQs to the other place he reminded MPs that he had once been the future. Of course, now Rishi Sunak has given him a chance to go back to the future without the need for a DeLorean. However, given the recent high turnover in Foreign Secretaries, I fear time might not be on his side.
The noble Lord may not be aware, but I have repeatedly praised his legacy on global international development, following on from the leadership given by Gordon Brown. In his foreword to the international development White Paper, published yesterday, the noble Lord reminded us that, 10 years ago, he co-chaired a panel for the United Nations on the future of development. The subsequent report paved the way for the 2015 sustainable development goals, ensuring that no one was left behind.
I mention this because some of the key concerns we have on this legislation relate to its impact on the world’s ability to achieve those goals by 2030. Although we welcome accession to the CPTPP, it does not make up for the failure to deliver on the trade deal that was due in October for India or the US trade deal promised by the end of 2022. I point out to the noble Lord that the department responsible for the Bill projected that the CPTPP deal would offer less than 1% to our GDP—and even this has been the subject of doubt by the Secretary of State.
Our foremost concern in relation to the deal is the investor-state dispute settlement provisions. We need to understand whether the economic benefits outweigh the risks to jobs, workers’ rights and sovereignty that this association brings. This type of corporate court system allows foreign companies to sue Governments for any actions that they argue could affect their profits—a system used in the past to challenge increases in the minimum wage and countries’ attempts to bring public services back into public ownership. What is astonishing is that the Government did not have to subject themselves to such legal shackles. When New Zealand joined the CPTPP, it opted out of the ISDS system with the countries that invested most in New Zealand. The UK Government asked for no such exemption, which we had with the Australia and New Zealand trade deals. Why not? Surely that is the sort of reassurance that the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary referred to.
The TUC, the Trade Justice Movement and Greenpeace have all argued that its presence poses a threat to rights, jobs and sovereignty. They argue—I draw this specifically to the attention of the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary—that it will undermine SDG 8, on fair labour laws, making it easier for goods that are made with exploited labour to be dumped on the UK market and easier for unethical companies and investors to do business with countries where it is easier to exploit workers. They also argue the ISDS court system means that protections of workers’ rights in the UK, such as those around safe working hours, could be challenged by multinational corporations, which could argue that such protections affect their profits.
We know that jobs in manufacturing in the UK are already being threatened by cheap imports of goods, such as steel and aluminium from Vietnam, some of which, as we have heard, are actually produced in China but routed through Vietnam to avoid the anti-dumping tariffs that the UK has on Chinese goods. According to the TUC, the CPTPP is likely to increase the dumping of goods from Vietnam, by providing it with more access to the UK market. In his response today, will the Minister tell us whether the Government have made any assessment of these risks? How about an assessment of the number of British jobs in steel, aluminium and other UK manufacturing industries that could be put at risk as a result?
Nowhere in any of the intergovernmental discussions on China’s potential membership of the CPTPP has there been any mention of its record on human rights. The text of the treaty itself contains no meaningful, enforceable clauses on this issue. All Members of this House will be aware of the text of the genocide amendment passed to the then Trade Bill, put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I hope the Minister can tell us in his response whether the Government have assessed China’s application to join the CPTPP against the risks and challenges set out in the integrated review refresh. It is vital that we have transparency on this issue, so that we know the implications. The Opposition have put forward very clearly the need for an absolute long-term strategy on China, and we will potentially see attempts through back doorways to change our strategy on that.
The noble Lord the Foreign Secretary mentioned intellectual property. In advance of the negotiations, the International Agreements Committee highlighted two issues: first, that CPTPP rules directly conflict with the European patent convention, and accepting them could jeopardise the UK’s continued membership of the European Patent Office; and, secondly, that the CPTPP introduces a mandatory procedure for notifying the patent holder when seeking authorisation for a generic or biosimilar medicine. This would, despite what the noble Lord said, result potentially in higher medicine prices for the NHS. It is welcome that the Government listened to concerns in this area and have ensured that their existing international commitments have been protected, as well as protections for geographical indications and performers in other CPTPP countries. However, can the Minister in his response confirm that this means no risk to the NHS in terms of higher medicine prices?
Despite what the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary said in his introduction, concerns remain regarding access to UK agricultural markets, such as Canada’s desire to gain greater access to our beef market. I think we need to hear the specific safeguards that have been secured for UK agriculture. The issue of food standards has been raised by the NFU and the RSPCA among others. I understand that we are expecting an analysis shortly, but I hope again that the Minister will give us reassurances from the Dispatch Box today on these issues. Moreover, what further assessment have the Government made of accession’s impact on the UK’s ability to hit its climate and environmental targets?
As we heard in a Question this afternoon, we want to ensure that we have a proper level of parliamentary scrutiny, which in the past on trade deals has been severely limited. The International Agreements Committee is still undertaking its inquiry into the CPTPP. Witness submissions have closed, but the committee is currently in the middle of collecting oral evidence. I repeat the comment made by my noble friend Lady Hayter during Questions this afternoon: give us a categorical assurance that that report will be fully debated in this House before the agreement is finalised. This is what Parliament means and this is what sovereignty is about. Let us ensure that there is a debate on these issues.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to be the first speaker from this side of the House to congratulate my noble friend, as I must call him now, on his excellent maiden speech and to welcome him to these Benches. Time flies: today I am welcoming him to the House but it does not seem so long ago that I was begging him not to resign as Prime Minister. It is a notable day for the House of Lords when we welcome a former Prime Minister who is also the new Foreign Secretary. Whatever the House of Commons may think, it is indisputably good for the House of Lords to have an additional Cabinet Minister in its ranks. He is the first former Prime Minister to return to Cabinet rank since Alec Douglas-Home almost 50 years ago. Before the war, it was quite the norm, with Baldwin, Ramsay MacDonald and Chamberlain all returning to government. It is a mystery to me why, today, we still have this self-defeating idea that former Prime Ministers should never return to front-line politics. I am glad that my noble friend has broken that rule.
Many people were surprised at the appointment of my noble friend. I was not wholly surprised. I hope I am not breaking any confidence, and my noble friend has probably forgotten, but about a year ago we had a conversation in which I asked him whether he would ever be interested in perhaps a big international job or becoming Foreign Secretary. He was not wholly convincing in his denial that he was not remotely interested. What I do know about the noble Lord is that he strongly believes in public service, and that is the reason why he is sitting where he is today.
The noble Lord and I go back quite some way, to when we both worked in the Treasury. He was always my brilliant spad. He was the master of detail and strategy. I always thought that he would go far and would achieve high office, but what I did not foresee was the rapidity with which he did so, becoming leader of the party in 2005, only four years after entering the Commons, and Prime Minister five years later.
We had some difficult times together. There was one moment when the noble Lord gave me a present; he may have forgotten this. It was a mahogany box about a foot long, and it contained the biggest Cuban cigar you could possibly imagine. There was a yellow notelet attached, which had on it in his handwriting the words, “By the time you smoke this, all your troubles will be over”. Well, my Lords, I never smoked it; I still have it. At times, when watching my noble friend as Prime Minister, I was tempted to send it back to him, but he would never have had need of it, because he has huge resilience.
I need hardly say that my noble friend faces huge challenges as Foreign Secretary. It is a dangerous world. One thing we know is that, when you have an unbelievably large number of difficult problems in politics, there is always another unexpected one coming round the corner. My noble friend, however, has the ability and experience to face these difficulties. This House has great experience in global affairs and there is a degree of common ground between the two sides of the House. The whole House will therefore wish to support him and wish him well. As they say, we look forward to hearing him again.
I welcome the Bill before us today. Before I move on to the detail of the Bill, I want to make one general point about trade that worries me considerably: the whole world, including the UK, is slipping back into protectionism. The retreat from globalisation is in danger of going too far. Yes, we have had the shocks of Covid and of the war in Ukraine. The emphasis has been on terms like “resilience”, “security of supply”, “strategic autonomy” and “self-sufficiency”, but too often these words are just disguised protectionism. Every sector considers itself strategic; we have to be self-sufficient in everything from cheese to steel. That is not the way to go. That is the way to becoming uncompetitive and poorer. Of course we have to pay some regard to the risks to supply that have emerged in recent years, but the answer to uncertainty of supply is to diversify your suppliers, not always to reach towards self-sufficiency. We ought to recognise that a policy of self-sufficiency comes at a price: a price to living standards and to the cost of living.
Let us not forget that the globalisation of recent years raised living standards—sure, there were losers in Europe as well as gainers—and the world as a whole gained a huge amount. Freedom of trade is not just an abstract idea; it is a positive instrument for improving the condition of people worldwide. We should also remember that, in the 1930s, the retreat to protectionism was one of the factors that, combined with others, contributed to the Great Depression. Like my noble friend Lord Hannan, who often uses this quote, I very much believe in John Bright’s idea—I think it was him—that “trade is God’s diplomacy”, improving relations between countries and improving the stability of the world. I make this general point because one thing about the CPTPP that I very much approve of is that it incorporates a commitment to furthering the cause of free trade. I think that is extremely important.
My noble friend emphasised all the statistics— I will not repeat them—about the CPTPP area: the growth of population and the extent to which it is supposed to contribute to the growth of the world economy in the next few years. Indeed, I believe, half the world’s middle- class consumers will soon be around the Pacific Rim. When combined with the UK, the area will account for 15% of world GDP, which is roughly the same as that of the EU; but, by 2050, the CPTPP area will account for 25%, whereas the EU will account for only 10%.
The CPTPP is, I need hardly say, very different from the EU. It is not a customs union or a single market. There is no TPP law, no TPP commission and no move towards a single currency. I note with a degree of scepticism that the Government say our commitment to the CPTPP is also furthering free nations, but among our partners there is one communist single-party state and one Islamic absolute monarchy as well. I am not quite sure how those fit in—I am not in any way criticising—but this is a free trade area above anything else. It fits in, of course, with the Government’s political objective of the tilt to the Indo-Pacific region, which was reinforced by the defence White Paper.
A number of commentators, including the noble Lord, Lord Collins, have tried to dismiss the importance of CPTPP a little because of the statistic that it will contribute, as he put it, only less than 1% to growth. This ignores the political context of the region and of joining this organisation, whether or not the 0.08% statistic that is bandied about is right. Perhaps the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, will comment on this when he comes to wind up, because I noticed in the Sunday Telegraph that the Secretary of State said she did not believe this figure, which has been officially quoted. But whether the contribution to growth of 0.08% is right or not, it ignores the potential. These are, as my noble friend Lord Cameron said, very fast- growing economies and we cannot predict precisely how trade flows will react to those.
Apart from anything else, this is a very deep free trade agreement. I stress that it is a free trade agreement, not a single market or a customs union. But it is a deep agreement and it has these advantages: it covers services, which are important to the UK, because we are the second-largest exporter of services in the world; for goods, there is a single set of rules of origin, which allows all content to be accumulated, provided that it originates in a CPTPP country; there is a good text also on sectors such as digital services, which are of increasing importance; it also gets rid of the need to have a local office before you can sell services into the market of the bloc. These are considerable advantages but, as I said before, one has to look at this very much in its political context and the tilt to the Indo-Pacific region.
The original TPP, the predecessor of the CPTPP, had the United States in it. Had the United States remained in it and President Trump not withdrawn from it, it would be one of the largest trading blocs in the world, amounting to 30% of world GDP. With 30% of world GDP, we would have been in a strong position with our allies there to play a huge part in influencing the rules governing the world economy. Originally, the United States was hoping that by joining the TPP, as it once stated that it was planning to do, it would be able to constrain the role of China in setting the rules of the world economy. We must hope that the United States will think again. I know that President Biden said initially that he might be interested in rejoining and then has lately tried to distance himself from it, but it would be important if America did join because the CPTPP has strong rules—much stronger than the WTO—about state-owned enterprises, which has been one of the main ways in which the Chinese have been criticised for how they compete unfairly with companies in the West.
In response, the United States has also set up the Indo-Pacific economic framework, a bloc that includes Indonesia. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, would comment when he winds up on how he sees the relationship between the two. To many it appears that the latest one, which America set up, is largely just a high-level discussion forum. It will not really be a rival to the CPTPP, but it would be interesting to know what the US Government have told him about this.
I welcome the Bill and our joining the CPTPP. It points the way to a very exciting future, which we should be very eager to grasp and take our full part in it.
Lord Razzall (LD)
My Lords, I rise as the first speaker from these Benches to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, on his appointment as Foreign Secretary, and welcome him to this House. In recent years, we have had a tradition of welcoming new, often inexperienced and young Peers. I do not think that any of those adjectives apply to the noble Lord, but I add my congratulations to those of other noble Lords. I particularly congratulate him on what he has done today. Of course, this is a highly technical Bill, and normally only eight or 10 speakers would be speaking on it. When it was rumoured that he was speaking, suddenly we had 27, including a lot of people who had never expressed any interest in trade or trade Bills. So I congratulate the noble Lord on that.
As I said, this is a highly technical Bill, but all the previous speakers have clearly taken the opportunity to make more general comments before getting to the detail of the Bill. We were told in 2016 that a major advantage of Brexit would be our ability to make trade deals ourselves, outside the ambit of the European Union. Liz Truss, when she was the relevant Minister, used to boast that more than 50 to 60 trade deals had been agreed since Brexit. The truth is that, in all but three cases, the deal consisted simply in snowpaking out the word “EU” and substituting the word “UK”. In all other respects, our trading arrangements with the countries in question remained unaltered.
The first two original agreements were with Australia and New Zealand—both of course criticised by the farming community. Nevertheless, we have those deals, and now we have the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, known as CPTPP, which we signed up to in July of this year. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, has touched on this, but I fear that, as usual, the Government have overblown the potential impact of our joining the CPTPP. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, indicated, the Government’s own figures said that there would be a minimal impact on our economy: under 1% of GDP.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, that we are a member of a club that is in a fast-growing area. Of course, apart from in the cases of Malaysia and Brunei, we already have trade deals with all the other countries, which clearly affects those numbers. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, indicated, clearly there will be opportunities in due course for Malaysia. So I accept that we are part of a growing economic area, and that being inside the tent may bring future economic benefits, which we may not be able to forecast at present. But it would be helpful, as the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, indicated, if the Minister when he replies could be more specific about what future advantages the Government see in our membership of the CPTPP.
To turn to the technical parts of the Bill—which is, as has been indicated, highly technical, and needs to be passed simply so that we can sign up to this agreement —obviously joining the CPTPP has been criticised from a number of quarters. There are concerns over agricultural risks, including pesticides and palm oil, which have been touched on. There are concerns over labour and human rights, and no doubt other colleagues will touch on these concerns. I would like to focus on the changes to copyright law contained in the Bill, and the criticisms by a number of relevant organisations, including the Alliance for Intellectual Property.
There is no doubt that the treaty has brought little direct benefit to the United Kingdom creative industries. The main achievement, which the noble Lord, Lord Collins, touched on, is that the agreement regarding IP rights enabled the UK to remain complaint with the European patent convention, which was a fear to begin with.
The Bill also provides for changes to copyright laws so that foreign rights holders and performers receive payment where they do not currently. As I read it—and I may perfectly well be wrong, as may the NGO—the Bill as it stands does not limit the extension to CPTPP countries, so it allows the Government to extend the benefits to rights holders and performers in any country, whether or not a reciprocal arrangement is in place. This would be particularly important if there were to be a proposal to extend to the United States.
I understand that the IP Office has said that a consultation on extending the right to all foreign holders and performers will be concurrent with the passage of the Bill. However, if this is the case, it means that the result of the consultation will be too late for proper legislative scrutiny. So I ask, first, why the changes to copyright laws in the Bill are not limited to CPTPP countries’ rights holders and performers? Secondly, do the Government intend to extend the right to all countries, whether or not there is reciprocity? Thirdly, do the Government intend to consult on these wider rights extensions?
As I have said, this is not a trivial issue, as a widening of rights would result in a net loss of revenue retained by UK rights holders, as revenue would shift towards foreign rights holders without reciprocal arrangements. That is particularly of concern vis-à-vis the United States, which is of course a significant player in the whole recorded music industry. How we on these Benches seek to amend the Bill will depend on the Minister’s answers.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, we have a very nice tradition in this House of always warmly welcoming maiden speeches. We usually do it because we are a nice, polite House. In this case, we do it because we genuinely warmly welcome the Foreign Secretary to join us and we greatly admire the maiden speech he has just made. We genuinely do.
There is something wonderfully Alice in Wonderland and ironic about the fact that the noble Lord’s maiden speech is made in a debate on an implementing Bill that will implement a treaty that we have not yet seen; it has not been presented to us. We are going to debate the detail of a Bill that will put on the statute book the necessary changes, because it is assumed that we will agree that we should accede to the CPTPP. Of course, it is not an unrealistic assumption, because we in this House can do absolutely nothing to stop our acceding to the CPTPP—which is again nicely Alice in Wonderland.
Actually, I would not want to stop it—I think it is a very good thing that we are acceding to the CPTPP—but I do hope that the Foreign Secretary will find time to consider the paradox that we are stuck here on pre-Brexit arrangements for scrutinising and approving trade agreements even though, post Brexit, we no longer have as our trade negotiators the Christopher Soameses, the Leon Brittans, the Cathy Ashtons or the Peter Mandelsons. We no longer have the right, in the Council of Ministers, to give them a mandate; we no longer have a European Parliament scrutinising everything they do in a trade negotiation; and we no longer therefore have Select Committees in this House and the other place scrutinising very closely what our Ministers say in the Council of Ministers, with all of this done in public.
Since Brexit, trade policy has been a black box. Westminster is in the dark and Whitehall has taken back absolute control. It does not feel quite right to me. I do not suppose the Foreign Secretary will have the time, or possibly the inclination, to consider amending the CRaG Act 2010, but I hope that successor Foreign Secretaries will. The Alice in Wonderland arrangements are all very funny, but it is not right.
I also hope that the Foreign Secretary might consider why the International Agreements Committee of this House has so regularly called for the publication of a government trade strategy. Most grown-up Governments publish their trade strategies. I am a member of that committee, and we have repeatedly called for one. Not knowing what the Government are trying to achieve makes it quite tricky to work out, looking at each negotiation and its outcome, how far they have achieved their aim. I am not naive; I suspect that I have just described what some Trade Secretaries would regard as the best feature of our arrangement. Since it is not possible to say against any overall guideline whether they have done well, they can tell us that they have done jolly well.
As previous speakers have indicated, some Trade Secretaries have tended to do that a bit. As the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, said, most of the agreements that Ms Truss presented, for example, were simple rollovers of the existing pre-Brexit arrangements, but all her geese were swans. Most of them were perfectly respectable geese, but they had to be presented as swans. I hope the Foreign Secretary will seek to persuade his Trade colleague, who I think is more open to the idea, to listen to the recommendation from this place that the Government should publish an overall trade strategy. But let me reassure him that the task of seeing this Bill through the House will not be onerous and that accession to the CPTPP is a swan—or at least a cygnet that might, over time, grow into a perfectly respectable swan.
I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, said about what it is worth economically in the short term. The Government’s own impact assessment says that in the short term there will not be much economic benefit. Their economic impact assessment says it has taken full account of the likely dynamic—on which I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lamont—and how the region is likely to grow. The impact assessment says that
“UK gross domestic product (GDP) could increase by the equivalent of £2.0 billion in the long run”
as a result of the CPTPP. It defines “in the long run” as by 2040. I agree with the impact assessment and those who say that all such long-range predictions have extremely wide margins of error, but it is important to remember that the Government thought that the central estimate of the likely financial benefit was £2 billion in the long term—in other words, about a third of 1% of GDP. That is not a lot. The reason is that we have existing free trade agreements with all CPTPP partners except Brunei and Malaysia.
But I believe that, over time, this agreement will deepen, widen and become genuinely significant, so I am glad that the Government have decided to get us on board. I hope that, during the course of our study of this Bill, the Government will set out for us how they see the future of the organisation. Do they believe, as I do—although I think the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, would disagree with me—that, to be effective, it will need to acquire some sort of permanent secretariat, possibly even a site? Do the Government believe that it will need to consider enforcement mechanisms? I do.
What is the government view of CPTPP accession and of the six outstanding applications? These include the Chinese application that, if accepted, which in my view is very unlikely, would be transformative—in my view very undesirably. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, was right to call for transparency on this. We need to know what the Government think is the future of the organisation we are getting into. Of course, it would be a perfect subject to be covered in a trade strategy document, which could also perhaps explore the wider issue of the future of the multilateral rules-based system, and whether it has a future or whether the future is bilateral and plurilateral arrangements like CPTPP.
I am with the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, on this. I am a free trader and I believe that the best for free trade is the widest-possible global rules: simple rules, but as wide as possible. But there are two obvious problems that he and I have to face: first, American protectionism. I warmly agree with what he said. It was free trading Republicans under Robert Dole who got the United States into the WTO, but that breed seems to be extinct, and their successors have destroyed the WTO court. The second problem is China, now the world’s number one trading power. Together with the rest of the global South, it does not mind global rules, but it does not see why they should remain the rules we set 75 years ago, in the very different era of Bretton Woods.
It has a point; we have been very slow to update the structures we built. Why have seven of the 10 heads of the WTO been Europeans, like all 12 heads of the IMF, with all 14 heads of the World Bank coming from America? There is room for new thinking on effective internationalism and on the institutions that should underpin a rules-based trading system. There is a perfect task for an experienced new Foreign Secretary to consider. Meanwhile, let us work on accession to the CPTPP and welcome his arrival in this House.
Lord Goldsmith (Lab)
My Lords, it is always an enormous pleasure to listen to and follow the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. I get the pleasure of doing that quite frequently because he sits on the International Agreements Committee, which I have the honour to chair. I want to say something about that, because it explains why I do not intend to say very much in my remarks today. There are two reasons. One is that, as has been pointed out, this is a technical Bill. It deals with some important but quite limited aspects of the CPTPP, and I do not want, as the chair of the IAC, to allow this debate to appear to be the debate on the whole of the treaty, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said in the earlier Question, we want to see on the Floor of the House. It is important that we do; it is important that we have scrutiny. I very much hope that the noble Lord, the new Foreign Secretary, agrees with that.
It is also the reason why, and I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, I did not contribute very much to the briefing that he very kindly held for Peers recently. It was again for the two reasons I am going to adumbrate that I did not think it was right to get too deeply into the subject. One reason is that it is quite a technical Bill. The second is that the Committee I chair is in the middle of an inquiry, as has been mentioned already. I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of that inquiry, or the views that the members will have about the treaty as a result of that.
I will tell the House where we have got to. We called for evidence between July and September. We have had 27 submissions and three oral evidence sessions already, and we intend to have further. We have had specialists in trade and foreign policy give evidence to us already, and we will hear from diplomatic representatives of at least two countries. I am therefore very keen that we should see the full results of the scrutiny we are doing and place that before the House.
We have had interesting evidence already and I invite noble Lords to look at that which has been given. For example, the Government may be interested to note that one of our witnesses, an expert and experienced witness, said that so poor is the Government’s information about free trade arrangements that some businesses look to other countries’ websites to find the answers to questions, including on how to navigate our own arrangements. They have also pointed out that the data is so difficult sometimes that some of it seems to show that a country is a net importer while other data shows that it is a net exporter.
These need to be dealt with as additional matters, but the fundamental point is that, when we complete our scrutiny, we will, I believe, have very clear views on the treaty. I do not want to pre-empt that today, so I will not say anything further about the detail of the Bill, but I will listen very carefully to what is said; I will study that and the rest of the proceedings on the Bill. I look forward to coming back when we are in a position to do as we intend: to present our report, on the Bill and the treaty, to the House fully.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. I welcome the scrutiny he is bringing to trade policy and look forward to his report being presented to the House; it is a very good example of why this House does such good non-partisan and detailed work behind the scenes that informs government policy.
I am here for a specific reason, but it is a welcome coincidence that I am here at the same time as my noble friend Lord Cameron has made his maiden speech in the House. It was a great pleasure to serve under him when he was Prime Minister. I was in fact his longest-serving Minister, because I was the last “Cameroon” to be sacked by Theresa May—I think that somebody had to remind her that I was still a Minister. When I heard the news that my noble friend was joining your Lordships’ House, I had a bitter-sweet reaction: I was overjoyed that he was joining our House, but I was then fed up with the endless WhatsApps from people asking why Rishi Sunak had not asked me to join his Government. Normally, this House sits out the heady 24 hours of a reshuffle.
My noble friend is joining an absolutely first-class Front Bench. I said to my noble friend Lord Ahmad yesterday that I was amazed that he could still get into the House given the praise that was heaped on him in the foreign affairs debate last week. My noble friend Lord Johnson is proving to be a fantastic and very creative Trade Minister, full of original and exciting ideas. I had a ditty about him, which has unfortunately been overtaken by events: he was introduced on a Monday, made his maiden speech on a Wednesday and was sacked on a Friday, by accident. He is the first comeback kid of the Front Bench; he was reinstated by the Prime Minister, and we are thankful for that.
I think that I am right in saying that my noble friend the Foreign Secretary was the first Prime Minister —or maybe the first Prime Minister for many decades—to visit Vietnam. That was a very big occasion, because, at the time, I became the trade envoy to Vietnam and had not realised quite what an economic powerhouse it is; it is representative of the south-east Asian nations. The CPTPP, which we are debating as part of this enabling Bill, is very important; it is very important that the UK has joined it. It represents part of a continuing strategic pivot—the latest, if you like—to the most dynamic and fastest-growing region in the world, the Indo-Pacific. It puts us in a place where we can have some kind of influence on the future trade policy of that region.
At the heart of the Indo-Pacific is the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. The big reveal is that I am the chair of the UK-ASEAN Business Council, so I am tremendously excited about the prospects the CPTPP brings to ASEAN and the wider region. We have an ambassador to the ASEAN region, now Sarah Tiffin, as well as a trade commissioner for the region and, as the Foreign Secretary pointed out, we are a strategic dialogue partner of ASEAN.
To pick up on the excellent points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, one reason why the UK-ASEAN Business Council is important, although it is a small organisation, is that it is an opportunity to hear from businesses about what is happening on the ground in the region, and indeed sometimes to hear their frustrations with how opaque some of the guidance and regulations from government are. For example, I was told by one member that the department of trade has a kind of artificial intelligence tool which it has purchased and paid for that would allow individual small businesses to search for their products and which, thanks to artificial intelligence, would throw up the easiest countries in the world with which to trade based on their product and a reading of those treaties.
There is a huge amount of work that can be done to make it easier for businesses to navigate the trade agreements that government puts in place. I know you cannot have an ambassador to a treaty, but it is certainly important for the Foreign Secretary to take from this debate that there is an opportunity to look hard at how we engage on the back of the opportunities that the CPTPP gives us. As he pointed out, it covers some 580 million people in 12 countries, with a combined GDP of £12 trillion. Four of them are members of ASEAN—Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam—while the Philippines and Thailand, also ASEAN nations, have both expressed an interest in joining, and they have seen how others have benefited.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, talked about what economic growth this might bring to us, and he is quite right to say that the estimates are always impossible to hold on to. One estimate was 0.08% over 15 years. Obviously, as a die-hard remainer before I became chair of the UK-ASEAN Business Council, I might have derided this and said to the Brexiteers, “Well, this is what you’ve given us in return for leaving the EU”. However, I am now a wiser person. The UK already has free trade agreements with most of the CPTPP members. It is important to note that the CPTPP will grow and expand, regardless of the issue of China, and our being the first non-Pacific country to join encourages economies looking to be a part of a free and open trading club. In that sense, the UK genuinely has led the way.
In this digital world, the connectivity infrastructure already exists which allows British businesses to provide services to anywhere in the world. Therefore, as part of the CPTPP, we can enable our trade infrastructure to connect our businesses to CPTPP members. Our services trade to CPTPP members last year was 43% of our total services trade. We do not need to establish local or regional offices to supply CPTPP countries, and it is very exciting to see companies anywhere in the UK now able to access markets such as Malaysia and Vietnam. In addition, many of those countries look to the UK for guidance and support in terms of digital trade; the agreement we signed with Singapore is ground-breaking. We are seen as a leader in this field, and we should certainly use our influence.
The CPTPP will also bring additional benefits over and above our free trade agreements. For example, we have a free trade agreement with Vietnam, which was the original EU agreement rolled over. That means that, as part of the CPTPP, our tariffs on engines, for example, will come down quicker. I know that the Foreign Secretary will be pleased to hear that the tariffs on chocolate and port will also be lowered at a faster rate, as well as duties on beef—duties will be eliminated. People travelling to do business in Vietnam will now be able to stay for six months instead of three months.
We now have a free trade agreement, thanks to the CPTPP, with Malaysia and Brunei as well. Brunei is an important ally and home to the largest UK military presence in the Asia-Pacific. Although our bilateral trade with Brunei is small, our relationship with Brunei is an excellent example of how we can work with some of the smaller economies in large trading blocs and shape the future of the region.
The real value is also strategic. Last week, our Secretary of State for Business and Trade, Kemi Badenoch, was in San Francisco for the first CPTPP meeting since July. The meeting was held on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation leaders meeting, discussing free trade in the Asia-Pacific. Being part of the CPTPP therefore allows the UK to be there on the sidelines of the APEC meeting. One thing I have learned since I became chair of the UK-ASEAN Business Council is that there is something called the APEC business travel card. I do not want to upset any noble Lords, but it effectively allows free movement within the region; it allows short-term business travel, streamlines the entry process and fast-tracks visitors. You can use an APEC business travel card lane at airports in APEC economies. This is the kind of opportunity that presents itself to the Government to push for now that they have a seat at this table.
The real benefit of joining the CPTPP is just that: being part of a club, if you like, that the UK has not been part of before. By being a part of the CPTPP, the UK has a seat at the table of some of the world’s most dynamic countries, committed—as most of us are—to free and fair trade. The work to shape our future begins now.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, like others, I very warmly welcome the return to government, and indeed the entry into our counsels here in this House, of someone with as much deep familiarity with world diplomacy and world politics as my noble friend Lord Cameron. A decade or more ago, I had the privilege of serving in a minor role in his Administration—rather more minor, actually, than I had hoped for, but nevertheless it was extremely interesting—where we were dealing with the Commonwealth, which was all part of the repositioning of Britain. This was pre-Brexit, but many of the forces which are driving us along today existed then. I was Minister for International Energy Security. With hindsight, I do not think I did a very good job there—certainly there have been a lot of problems since. But this is a good moment, and I am very pleased.
My noble friend inherits an appalling set of problems, and there are no immediate solutions to any of the major crises that this nation or the whole world is facing at the present time. There is poison in every chalice. The skill will lie in handling the issues and in deploying new compounds of persuasive soft power and decisive hard power—they go together; they cannot operate separately—and a new understanding of the world of networks in which we now live. This means seeing the world order—or disorder, as it is now—through the eyes of others, as well as our own, and through the eyes of the future, as well as our history. It means ceaselessly creating new alliances, and swiftly, to meet endlessly unfolding new crises. This is the enlightened and agile sort of diplomacy that we will need to survive over the next decades of this century.
In my view, our new Foreign Secretary should not be judged by the instant diplomatic successes that he chalks up—although I suppose the media will have a shot at that—but by whether there is a real understanding that our nation is in an entirely new position, requiring many different sorts of alliances, backed by huge ingenuity and constant resilience, and readiness to recognise the totally new factors at work in the international landscape. We need a restart from a fresh realisation. Nowadays, in this digital age, most nations, large and small, want to be free of too much Chinese hegemony and pressure on that side, with all its traps and dangers, of which we can see a great deal going on, and from too much overassertive leadership and stale ideology, served up on the western side from some parts of the American establishment. It is partners that people want; they do not need overbearing bosses.
I come to the treaty and the legislation needed to bring it into effect. A moment ago, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, described how, in the committee that he so ably chairs, we are scrutinising the CPTPP arrangements, the treaty and the details very seriously indeed. Of course, there is a lot more work to be done, and no doubt we shall have an opportunity in this Chamber to procedure these things—always remembering that the complexity is of just the kind where a committee inquiry is the most effective way of getting at the details. Later on, we can deal with the legal aspects in the Chamber, but, if we really want to go into the depth of the detail, it is in the committee environment where we will succeed in doing so.
I regard the treaty as a step in a strategic shift of the first importance for our nation, and I am glad to see that the impact assessment echoes that sentiment. There are many more steps to be taken in the same direction but this is one that some of us have been urging the UK to move towards for at least the past decade, if not more. The Minister and the Foreign Secretary are quite right to depict membership of the CPTPP as a gateway, or pathway, to high-growth Asian markets as part of our Indo-Pacific tilt. The second version of the Cabinet Office’s integrated review makes this point very clearly indeed—of course, there will now have to be a third version, I am afraid, in the light of more developments in the Middle East. That third review will also need to reinforce the same message: this is part of a clear strategy.
I know that the estimated trade gains look pretty small, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, alluded to; I think that the figure is an extra £4.9 billion-worth of trade both ways by 2040, which is not very much. However, that is because, as the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, said, we already have trade agreements with most of the members—although not with Malaysia—and any gains from this treaty will come on top of those existing flows. More than that, the CPTPP is about far more than further increasing our measured volumes of conventional trade with other member states, which is always difficult to estimate anyway. Not only is the group going to expand in number—three more countries have already applied to join; China obviously wants to join, which raises all sorts of tricky developments which we will have to deal with in due course and which we are examining in the committee—but behind the trade deals lie several major new realities about the nature and patterns of trade and exchange in the 21st century that many people still seem reluctant to face or grasp.
The first of these is that, over the next 30 years, most of the growth in consumer markets and investments will be in the Asian region. We are looking here at something that is already as big as the EU single market and at new trade and economic groupings, such as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, which are already larger in overall GDP than the EU. Then of course there is the liquidity of ASEAN as a whole, which we are developing at the moment. At the same time, there are huge new infrastructure projects across Eurasia, weaving the whole Asian continent together, about which we have hardly any coverage in our media here. That is the first reality.
Secondly, the reality is that trade flows and investment of all kinds—direct and financial, both ways—are welded together, each promoting the other. They are inseparable.
Thirdly, half of what we broadly call trade, and which conjures up visions of thousands of containers on giant cargo carriers, is now trade in knowledge products, digital trade, trade in services, data and technology innovations. Every installed piece of capital equipment comes with a vast package of high-tech procedures, personnel and supporting consultancy. We are informed that 42% of all this country’s trade with CPTPP members is in services of various kinds—it is probably very much higher.
Fourthly, Japan has been of enormous assistance to us on the pathway to membership. Our growing ties with Japan on many industrial and technological fronts, including the enormous Tempest combat aircraft project, are a parallel story, maybe for another day, but are hugely important for our future. People forget that Japan is still the world’s third-largest industrial power and, in terms of underlying stability and conditions, is favourable to competitive enterprise. In a way it is vastly ahead of its Chinese neighbour. We should stick to Japan like glue on every front, security included. Incidentally, I declare an interest in past and present links with Japan and two of its biggest enterprises, Mitsubishi Electric and Central Japan Railway.
Fifthly, it is worth noting that when we join the CPTPP, more than half its membership will be members of the Commonwealth network. People may say, “What has that got to do with trade?” The answer is, “A very great deal”. Not only are matters often settled informally and in the coffee break, rather than over formal transcripts round the negotiating table; the whole trade and investment process works much the best within a broader context of unifying forces and activities, ranging from the cultural and artistic, education and scientific research, to constant new thinking in many fields of professional standards and training. Above all, there is the fact of the English-speaking world and a common business language between us all. English contains its own DNA, which grows and which no amount of official disregard, jealousy or historic dislike can eliminate.
It so happens that the binding values that hold the Commonwealth together today and cause it to grow and attract new members, as now, are just the ones which are of key significance in the digital age of hyper- connectivity—binding links not just between officialdom and Governments, which may seem at times to be at odds, but at every level of society and interest. These are such things as the rule of law, open societies, free speech and free press, independent judiciary, free elections, proper concern for human rights, due process and adherence to international norms and standards, all of which are now becoming part of the survival kits for the planet’s army of independent nations—the so-called “neo non-aligned” states.
We must get out of the patronising habit of bundling so many nations together as the so-called developing world. Every new nation today and every society—maybe even hermit states such as North Korea—are developing in different ways. That includes us, as we embark on the great energy transition which will bring with it a great social development transition as well—on which, incidentally, we have hardly started.
Today, the CPTPP needs a hinterland of support, activity and connection if it is to flourish. I was disappointed that last year, the Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia—ERIA, the powerful research wing of ASEAN—wanted to hold a major conference here in London with our leading think tanks and policy groups but was turned away or only offered co-operation, on impossible and ridiculous terms and fees. That is where the FCDO should have stepped in—if it even knew about it.
I hope that this lesson on the need for surrounding activity beyond trade itself in the areas of business, culture, science and all the rest is now understood in Whitehall and Downing Street, and that steps are even now being taken to bring the right groupings together between all the new Asian powers and the United Kingdom, covering all fronts and at the highest possible level. Trade rides with investment, security, culture and values, and with daily connectivity. Please can we not forget that.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I too welcome the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, to the Chamber. We shall have to get used to using territorial designations, because these Benches have had a noble Lord, Lord Cameron, here for a number of years.
I also welcome the chance to debate this trade Bill but, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, alluded to earlier, we are considering the cart before the horse. The Trade and Agriculture Commission report is “due to be completed” by 30 November, so we have no sight of that yet. The Section 42 report required under the Agriculture Act 2020 will be available after that, and formal parliamentary scrutiny under CRaG will follow. So we are being asked to comment on the Bill without the benefit of those important reports and that of the International Agreements Committee.
I am left considering the benefits and costs of this agreement. I acknowledge, as has been ably and eloquently detailed by previous speakers, the benefits of agreements of this type over and above the financial. But the financial benefits are extremely modest: I find the Government’s estimate of £2 billion additional GDP by 2040 rather underwhelming.
So I am left considering the downsides or costs and concerns. Noble Lords are aware of my interest as a veterinary surgeon, and my concerns concentrate on our animal health and welfare, public health, the health of our farming industry, and animal health and welfare in the countries that will be supplying us with animal products more freely under this agreement.
We and His Majesty’s Government are rightly proud of our high animal welfare standards. Ministers regularly assure us that we will not lower our standards in negotiating free trade agreements. With respect, that is the right answer to the wrong question. We should ask whether countries exporting to the UK will raise their standards to our level. The answer in this case is that they have no obligations so to do.
The organisation World Animal Protection, formerly the World Society for the Protection of Animals, a global charity for animal welfare based in London, produced a ranking of 50 countries based on its consideration of 10 indicators covering the most important aspects of animal protection. In its latest, 2020 ranking, all the countries within the CPTPP agreement are lower than the UK. Only New Zealand, arguably, comes close to our overall standards.
In our quest for free trade agreements we have yet to set minimum standards for food imports, with the exception of hormone-treated beef, chlorine-washed chicken and ractopamine in pigs. Ongoing tariff negotiations with Canada and Mexico raise concerns about the potential vulnerability of UK farmers, particularly with regard to eggs, pigs, pigmeat and beef meat products produced at standards that are illegal in the UK. Several CPTPP countries still allow practices such as conventional battery cages—banned in the UK since 2012. Similar concerns arise with pigmeat imports from CPTPP members that employ sow stalls—banned in the UK since 1999.
Of particular concern, nationally and globally, for both animal and public health, is the excessive use of antibiotics in several CPTPP countries, with the attendant risks of importing and spreading antibiotic-resistant bacteria in animal products. I know this will be a matter of concern to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, who, to his great credit, raised the whole issue of antimicrobial resistance to the top of the political agenda and commissioned the O’Neill commission to report its important findings in 2016 on reducing our use of antimicrobials to prevent the severe downsides of antimicrobial resistance.
At a time when food security is rightly a concern, we should be extremally careful not to handicap, undercut or potentially destroy our own food production capability by importing products produced to lower welfare standards. At a time when climate change is such a dominant political issue, we should guard against exporting greenhouse gas emissions by importing products produced less efficiently than we do. A relevant example concerns beef, a kilogram of which we can produce in the UK with less than half the global average of associated greenhouse gas emissions. We should aim to not import beef from any country unless its carbon footprint is lower than ours.
In joining the CPTPP, we note that the Government’s own environmental impact assessment suggests that an increase in global greenhouse gas emissions will occur, but that it will be slight and negligible. But this does not take into account emissions due to transport, nor the potentially high starting point of the carbon footprint in the countries of origin.
In conclusion, we need to safeguard the UK’s indigenous, high-quality, high-welfare and sustainable food production capabilities. That does not mean that we require self-sufficiency—not at all—but we should ensure that we safeguard the core of essential food production capability.
So, finally, I ask the Minister: when will Parliament see the TAC report? Secondly, in his letter of 8 November to noble Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Johnson of Lainston, stated that
“the Government has ensured that joining will not compromise our high animal and plant health, food safety, or animal welfare standards”.
In view of the fact that we cannot influence current standards in member countries of CPTPP, how will this be achieved?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to support the Government on this important Bill at Second Reading, and to congratulate my noble friend on his excellent maiden speech. I must say that I cannot claim quite the same experience of the noble Lord’s time as Prime Minister as others who have spoken so far today. I was, for part of the time, a humble bureaucrat in the system, working for Vince Cable on EU trade agreements—so we are none of us perfect—and then as head of the Scotch Whisky Association. I must say that, while I was doing that job, his Government either froze or cut the duty on Scotch whisky, to which he alluded in his speech—a policy which has since, regrettably, fallen into abeyance. Perhaps his return to government will herald a change in that policy as well. Who knows? I guess we are going to find out tomorrow.
In this context, I pay tribute also not just to my right honourable friend the current Secretary of State for Business and Trade, who got this agreement over the line, but to her three predecessors who kept the CPTPP on the agenda when it was not obvious that it would stay on it. I single out in particular my right honourable friend Dr Liam Fox, who kept the prospect of joining the CPTPP alive in a Government who, at times, seemed—how shall we put it?—unduly attached to remaining part of the EU customs union and other trading arrangements. Of course, if they had succeeded in that, it would have precluded CPTPP accession and we would not be having the discussion we are having today—so he deserves to be congratulated on that.
I will say just a word about the process that we are in. I think it is fair to say that I do not always agree with my former mentor, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who spoke earlier, but I do agree with the points he made about the process. It is a little strange that, after Brexit, the degree of scrutiny and the ability to comment, shape and, indeed, vote on major trade agreements that this Parliament has in both of its Houses is actually weaker than when this country was a member of the European Union. Obviously, I supported and worked for Brexit and I do not think it is right that we have less ability to shape these things than we did when we were in the EU. I have said that to Select Committees of this House and of the other place. We should look at that in the interests of democratic scrutiny and developing a trade policy that we can all buy into in the future. I hope that can be looked at one day.
We have heard a lot already about the economic benefits of accession to this trade agreement. I will not repeat what has been said already, but I want to highlight a couple of slightly more technical points. First, the rules of origin provisions in this agreement are generous—unusually so. They provide for full accumulation, as has been said. That is potentially of considerable value and will be of particular benefit to firms, perhaps especially SMEs, that seek to diversify and make secure their supply chains, away from China perhaps in particular, because many will need to do that in the coming years. Indeed, many are already doing it. Of course, as the CPTPP enlarges, that will become a more worthwhile provision—so, again, it is very good to see that we will be part of that.
I also want to highlight the value of the arrangements for conformity assessment bodies in Clause 2. I note in passing that the EU refused us these arrangements during the negotiation of the trade and co-operation agreement, so it is good to see that, at least in some of our trade agreements, we are part of them. It is the difference between being part of a trade agreement that is genuinely about facilitating trade and one that is about a power relationship between the two partners. So, once again, it is very good that we are part of that. Of course, it should go without saying—but I do not think it has been said yet—that we get all the benefits of the CPTPP without having to pay in £15 billion a year to the budget or make ourselves subject to a foreign court to get them.
So much for the economics; the key arguments for the CPTPP are more strategic than purely economic. I will briefly highlight three aspects. The first is diversification of our national trade policy. As we all know, increasing openness and competitive forces on our own economy is crucial to boosting productivity and growth, so it is not surprising, although a bit disappointing, to hear from some noble Lords a set of worries about precisely that openness to competitive forces, whether on ISDS, food, agriculture or on much else. The problem we have in this country is not too much competition but too little, and trade agreements are designed to boost that competition, boost efficiency and bring more growth.
Since leaving the EU, we have not pushed as far as we should in this direction. Indeed, our trade policy so far can be seen as in many ways a giant preference scheme in favour of the European Union. That is particularly true in agriculture, where EU goods enter without tariffs and quotas; no other trading partners have that at the moment, so it is vital that we open this up, and begin to open up our trading options globally. The CPTPP is part of this. It is a bit disappointing that in our accession protocol the transition to zero-tariff access for some agricultural products is a little slow, and even includes permanent quotas in one or two places. I understand the political logic that has led to that, because the NFU is a mighty power in the land, but this will defer some of the gains to our consumers. Again, it is something that we might look at one day in the future and take a more liberal approach.
The second strategic aspect of CPTPP is about embedding our engagement with east Asia, particularly with close allies such as Japan. The Indo-Pacific tilt is clearly more than just a tilt, and CPTPP goes with AUKUS and the ASEAN dialogue partner status as one of the three pillars of strategic engagement in the Asia-Pacific region. Indeed, let us hope that there will be a fourth pillar before too long, in the form of an FTA with India.
The third and final aspect is the signal that CPTPP membership gives about this country’s global trade policy aspirations and role. As the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, said, it is to be deplored that we are moving to a world of blocs, industrial policy and protectionism. Although there is room for a little more focus on national security in trade and investment, this development will generally see reduced incomes, reduced growth and probably further international tensions.
By its very existence, the CPTPP can and does already stand for something different. It is a different kind of grouping; it is a group of mid-size but extremely important powers that support open and global free trade. They are an open and free-trading counterweight to set against these broader undesirable global trends. It is absolutely natural for Britain to be part of that arrangement and to push for these things further within the CPTPP at a global level. Maybe in winding up, or later, the Minister could set out a little more what the aspirations to use the CPTPP are, and what ability it gives us to shape and broaden out our own trade policy, now and into the future.
Those who said the UK could never pursue an independent trade policy outside the EU have been proven wrong. With CPTPP accession, we have FTAs covering over 60% of our trade, goods and services, and the only reason we have not reached the 80% target is the reluctance of the US to do new trade agreements with anybody, not just us. This is a big success area, and getting into the CPTPP is a big part of it. That is why I am delighted to support the Government on the Bill and getting it through rapidly soon.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, it is always nice to follow the noble Lord, Lord Frost. We sparred a few times on Brexit, and as he was running the Scotch Whisky Association and I was running Alcohol Concern, noble Lords will not be surprised that we have slightly different views about the duty on whisky. In welcoming the new Foreign Secretary, I assure him, as the first woman to be able to welcome him today, that he will find that we are a quarter of this House and are normally far more in evidence than perhaps we have been. If he thinks he is going to get away with gentlemanly behaviour in the future, he may find that we also have a voice.
I am particularly pleased that the Foreign Secretary made his maiden speech on the CPTPP, as it is the flagship of the post-Brexit policy that followed after he had left No. 10—despite, as we have heard, its very modest impact on our current trade arrangements. That is partly because, as we have heard from a number of speakers, we already have agreements with the majority of the 11 members, particularly Japan of course, but also Australia and New Zealand, the FTAs with which we have looked at the FTAs in this House quite recently.
I know that, in welcoming the new Foreign Secretary, the Lib Dem Benches will be particularly pleased to be reminded by these Benches that they were once in coalition with him in government, something they often fail to declare. However, my Labour colleagues and I of course welcome him. He has a vital role to play, partly in rebuilding trust and confidence in the UK following Boris Johnson’s attempts when he was Prime Minister to break international law by threatening to abrogate part of a treaty he had so recently signed, and today, at a time when the Government are threatening to renege on international law and our own legislation and common law in their desperate desire to fight an election with pictures of planes taking off to Rwanda. I hope that the Foreign Secretary, whom we know is an honourable man, will help to restore trust and decency in the Government and thus re-establish confidence in the bona fides of the country that we all love and want to serve.
The Foreign Secretary will by now have been well briefed—we hear from the usual reliable sources that he is very well briefed and reads everything—on the intricacies of the CPTPP. It was a pre-cooked agreement which involved us merely joining rather than being able to negotiate, as with other agreements. It is, as a number of speakers have said, a significant partnership. It embraces 11 countries stretching from Vietnam to Peru, many of which, if not all, are experiencing growth and—of particular relevance to this country—are increasing potential markets for the products and services for which we are so well known.
However, to make this work for our exporters, which is the important issue, the Department for Business and Trade will have to step up the support which it offers to companies and individuals who want to do business in a CPTPP country. The Bill hardly touches that side of the main part of the partnership agreement, which we trust will be fully debated here, as has been mentioned already. The Bill really just deals with three issues which require some tweaks to our legislation, whereas the majority of the agreement does not need any legislative changes, hence the need for a fuller debate.
When I was still chairing the International Agreements Committee some two years ago, it examined the negotiating objectives and there was very broad support for accession at that moment. Nothing seems to have diminished that, according to the evidence submitted to the new inquiry. Indeed, our committee’s current inquiry, as described by my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith, is into the outcome of negotiations. Some of the stuff we have been looking at already suggests that some of the major questions are about the practicalities. Those include whether the lack of a fully functioning and permanent secretariat to this rather complex agreement will suffice to iron out the technical and other issues that are bound to develop not just with our accession but with its continuing growth; and, I am afraid to say, why the department’s recent dialogue with stakeholders appears to been so dismal just when business most needs help to plan for and get help with our accession. The benefits of this agreement will be realised only with considerable assistance from the Government so that businesses can take advantage of what is there in the new trade freedoms.
The British Chambers of Commerce, which supports the “speedy ratification” of the agreement, says that it wants to work with the Government
“to ensure firms get the best possible access”
to what it defines as a “thriving market”, but this will depend on the department reaching out to stakeholders and providing the advice, guidance and, indeed, the access that they need.
When we looked at the agreement two years ago, the UK Fashion and Textile Association said that it had not seen much export development take place, while the NFU wanted the Government to put more energy and resources into export promotion and marketing. It would therefore be helpful to hear about the Government’s plans for working with relevant industries and professional associations to make the most of the enhanced business mobility possibilities that have already been touched on.
Indeed, to give just one example, I have had a query from a sector possibly impacted by the Bill, which I will outline here. My concern is less with this particular issue and more that it has not been ironed out by the department talking to the relevant industries. The question relates to Clause 4, which amends the rolled-over EU regulations to enable the Secretary of State to cancel trademarks and geographical indications retrospectively.
The question is: might this new power cause some conflicts with the EU should the Secretary of State remove trademarks that apply in the UK and the EU simply to satisfy a demand from a CPTPP member? Does the Bill really need to make this provision for the CPTPP to apply in UK law, given that GIs are determined on a bilateral basis between CPTPP member countries? Perhaps the noble Lord can clarify this matter and—more importantly—confirm that relevant stakeholders impacted either have been or will now be consulted before we ratify and the procedures come into place.
I turn to broader political issues. There is one early discussion, already touched on, that will involve the Government now that we are members—that is, of course, about the future expansion of the CPTPP. We are the first country to join since it was established by its 11 inaugural members, and we are the first European member—which sort of stretches the definition of “Pacific”. On the agenda for the partnership now is the application for China to join. Needless to say, we will be particularly interested in the Foreign Secretary’s view on this. As my noble friend Lord Collins and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, have emphasised, this strategic issue is of central concern to the UK and, indeed, to other countries. We look forward to hearing the Government’s views on that in due course.
Most commentators see the importance of the CPTPP as being part of the Indo-Pacific tilt—a diplomatic and security matter as much as a straight economic one—so the Minister’s views on where we sit in that sphere will be of continuing interest to this House. It is particularly good that we have the Foreign Secretary, from the FCDO, sitting alongside the Minister from the Department for Business and Trade. It stresses again the need referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, for the strategic framework. Trade is part of foreign policy and, indeed, defence policy. Therefore, seeing how this all fits together is an important challenge for the Government.
The new Foreign Secretary has already been warned that there is a lot on his plate; we add this to it. For the moment, this Bill, a small but important part of our accession, is to be welcomed. I wish it well.
Lord Marland (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure and a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town. I have sat on the International Agreements Committee with her for a number of years. She chaired it magnificently before handing back to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, who I think has found her a tough act to follow.
It is also a huge pleasure to see my noble friend the Foreign Secretary here. It is a boost for the House of Lords and for the international community. It is also a boost for those who play tennis with him, because during the fallow period his game has improved and we rather hope it will go back to the status quo. I worked closely with him on trade issues. In a moment of brilliance, he made me his trade envoy in his Government, putting trade at the heart of government. Between us we set up what is now the trade envoy network, which has been a successful cross-party network promoting trade across the world. I have therefore seen at first hand how, internationally, his status is so high. I have seen the energy he puts into international matters and the respect he is held in throughout the world, so we are incredibly lucky that he has chosen to give up an extremely comfortable and enjoyable life to return to public service.
It will be more comfortable here, as has been said by other noble Lords, but less comfortable as a lifestyle none the less. We wish my noble friend all the best—and, for heaven’s sake, this country needs a dynamic and vigorous Foreign Secretary. In my role as chairman of the Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council, I think I have done 45 flights this year—please do not tell the eco lobby this—all in the interest of international trade. Everywhere I go, the Foreign Office’s standing is diminishing. It is therefore critical that we have such a big hitter delivering for us in the world.
I also want to apologise in advance, because another thing that my noble friend made me do when I was working with him was to chair an Armed Forces charity. I am afraid that I am going to have to go to its huge celebration, which has long been in the diary, at the same time as him. I apologise to noble Lords if I have to leave at the same time as he does.
I shall not add to the comments that have been made by the excellent committee members who I have the honour and privilege of working with. I want to enhance the words of our chairman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, who said that we are still very much scrutinising this matter and intend to give it a full wind. It would therefore be wrong for me to add anything more to those excellent comments, other than to say that it is a good start. As my noble friend Lord Frost says, it is a step in the right direction. It is a modest treaty but none the less a statement of intent.
Curiously enough, of the 12 countries now in the CPTPP, if we include the United Kingdom, seven are Commonwealth countries. I have told the great Trade Minister, my noble friend Lord Johnson, who is also a vigorous and dynamic man, that it is amazing to me that neither his department nor the Foreign Office has shown leadership in establishing a Commonwealth trade treaty. Why are we sitting on our backsides and not showing leadership in the world where we have an open goal, as my noble friend Lord Howell has said—many others would agree—of 56 English-speaking countries sharing so many interests?
When my noble friend the Foreign Secretary was Prime Minister he attended two CHOGMs, so he has been very much involved with the Commonwealth. Why are we not picking up the baton and showing real leadership in the world of international trade where, as my noble friend Lord Lamont ably put it, people are starting to put up trade barriers? As a parting gesture, and to make my speech as short as I possibly can, I put it to the Foreign Secretary and to the excellent Minister of Trade, my noble friend Lord Johnson, that this should become a priority.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Marland, who, like a number of previous speakers, have thanked the new Foreign Secretary for posts to which he appointed them. I, too, wish to say my grateful thanks to the new Foreign Secretary for posts to which he appointed me —but I remind him that, on one occasion, he specifically required me to work alongside Michael Gove.
I genuinely welcome the Foreign Secretary to his new post and congratulate him on an excellent maiden speech. I suspect that I am right, although perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong, that, despite all his years in the other place, this is the first time that he has ever led for the Government in introducing a piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation that we have mixed views about—but certainly, as others have already pointed out, because of the inadequacies of our trade scrutiny arrangements in this place, we are being asked to look at a small piece of legislation that will enable the implementation of a very large trade deal, with which your Lordships’ House has not had a real opportunity to engage.
In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Frost, we have not had the opportunity to all buy into the deal, and we are having to do it in the absence of some quite important information—information, for instance, that would be contained in the report to which the excellent chair of the International Agreements Committee has referred. We have not got access, because it is not yet ready, to the government-requested report from the Trade and Agriculture Commission. We are short of information, yet it is sadly one of the few opportunities that we have to debate the CPTPP, its processes and outcome, because we have this one Bill to look at.
As others have pointed out, on these Benches we are well aware that there are some benefits of the deal—particularly some significant geopolitical benefits, I would accept. But notwithstanding the rhetoric of major economic benefits, or the optimistic predictions of our new Foreign Secretary, the figures on the economic benefit show that it is very limited. After all, it was the Government’s own figures, as we have heard, that show that the increase in GDP will be only 0.1% of GDP—and I remind other noble Lords who earlier said that it was 1%. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, reminded us, that is up to a period up to 2040, so it is taking into account all the potential growth that would take place in the region. After all, it is a tiny fraction that we will get back in comparison to the 4% loss of GDP because of our exit from the European Union.
As we have heard, there are many concerns about the deal, such as on weak provisions on labour rights, which some argue could lead us to importing goods made by exploited labour. However, to echo my noble friend Lord Razzall, I want to concentrate on the area of intellectual property, with concerns that I raised some years ago, when I served as a member of the International Agreements Committee. The whole House has accepted on many occasions that our creative industries have become the powerhouse of the economy, and intellectual property rights and their enforcement are their lifeblood.
As the CPTPP negotiations began, the creative industries, recognising that other countries in the group with less developed creative sectors would have less concern about IP issues, made a number of recommendations about what the Government should seek to achieve. One such issue, as we have heard, was in relation to the patent grace period, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and by my noble friend. The Government were warned that the CPTPP rules require its members to have a grace period for patents, whereas the European patents convention does not. If we agreed to the rules, it would put at risk the UK’s vitally important membership of the European Patent Office. I am genuinely delighted that the Government were successful in enabling us to set aside the CPTPP grace period provisions—but, sadly, few others of the sector’s asks were achieved. I suspect that that was because we were in the position of being a rule-taker rather than a rule-maker.
When, for instance, we were negotiating with New Zealand for a trade deal, it was between equal partners, and as a result of the pressure we were able to put on, New Zealand agreed to increase its copyright term to 70 years after the death of an author. We had clout in those negotiations. But the sections of CPTPP relevant to copyright term are currently suspended, so, as a start, the sector wanted our Government to press for the suspension to be lifted. However, as the Government had no clout in the negotiations, it was not, so our creators, except where we have bilateral deals, lose out.
In the digital environment, content owners rely on a range of measures to prevent piracy and the resulting loss of economic value, but given that the CPTPP provisions that support these protections are also suspended, the sector again wanted the suspension to be lifted. It was not, so there is no protection of UK content owners in important markets such as Malaysia and Vietnam. The CPTPP has no measures in relation to artists’ resale rights, meaning that UK artists and their estates are unable to receive royalties when their work is sold on the secondary market in CPTPP member countries which have not introduced such a right unilaterally. The sector’s request for the inclusion of ARR went unanswered, and our artists lose out.
Of particular concern is that the CPTPP does not have the same firm view as the UK that creators should have almost exclusive rights on their work, underpinning their ability to generate income. The CPTPP, for example, talks of
“a balance of rights and obligations”
in the interests or promotion of technological advances. This, the sector believes—maybe the Minister could comment on this when he winds up—means that technology and social media companies could have undue influence in determining the reasonable rights of creators; again, there is the potential for those creators to lose out.
So, overall, it is not a good deal for our creative industries, many of which are worried that, by signing up to it, we have indicated a willingness to accept a lower level of protection for copyright than exists in the UK, and that it will set a worrying precedent for future negotiations. Another country might say, for example, “Well, you were happy to sign up to that level of protection with them, so why not with us?”
Clause 5 introduces a further concern, which has already been touched on. It introduces an obligation on the UK whereby foreign rights holders and performers, for works within the UK, would receive payment where they currently do not. That is fine, and one would assume therefore that the obligations will be limited to CPTPP country rights holders and performers. But the Bill as it stands, bizarrely, does not limit this extension to CPTPP countries; rather, it provides for secondary legislation that will, in due course, specify the countries to be covered. Will the Minister confirm that consultation on which countries are to be included is going to take place during the passage of the Bill? Does he at least accept that we are being asked yet again to make decisions without having all the facts, and certainly without knowing what the implications will be?
I hope that the Minister will make it clear in his response that the Government accept that the IP chapter of the agreement, including the suspension of some of the IP provisions, is deficient, is a real cause for concern among the creative industries and, frankly, is not what the UK expects from future international trade agreements.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, and his trenchant antidote to the enthusiasms we have heard for this enabling Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s response on copyright.
It is also a great pleasure to welcome the Bill and to welcome my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton to this House. It is indeed an honour that we have a Foreign Secretary on our Benches; as other noble Lords have pointed out, it raises the stature of the House. I met my noble friend before he entered Parliament—he very kindly came to brief me on Conservative Party policy in advance of a programme I was appearing on. In his typically courteous and patient manner, he expounded on Conservative Party policy on a range of issues, which convinced me that he was very able and intellectually astute. Not only that, he was charming, patient and courteous and asked if I had any views on these matters. When I gave my views, he smiled and paused and said, “Typically robust, as I would have expected from you”. Well, I am delighted with his typically robust introduction of the Bill and the advantages of the CPTPP. I am truly glad that he regards this as a great opportunity not only for the UK, its trade and the lives of its people, but for other peoples in other parts of the world. I am truly delighted.
I welcome my noble friend’s analysis of the Bill, which, as he explains, will ensure that the UK’s legal house is in order for the CPTPP to come into operation, thus opening one of the world’s fastest growing markets to the UK’s people and businesses. I have an interest to declare as the founder and research director of the think tank, Politeia. I have benefited and learned a great deal from working with specialist economic and trade lawyers. In particular, we have published on how best to exploit the opportunities now open to the UK for free trade since leaving the EU and to help shape the framework for world trade in goods and services, as noble Lords have already mentioned today.
The CPTPP already accounts for around 12% of global GDP, covering 11 countries, as your Lordships have heard, that are party to the treaty. The UK will now be the 12th, and that will bring the figure expected as a share of global GDP to 15%. Today, the US accounts for around 15%, as does the EU, but their shares are declining, whereas those of this region are growing. As was pointed out, by 2050 the proportions will be 25% for the CPTPP and 10% for the EU.
Not only will UK businesses benefit from building their export trade; so will people themselves—from a trade deal that heralds a more competitive and wider marketplace, with goods and services meeting ambitious common standards in a rules-based system. It will also allow, as noble Lords have mentioned, the UK to be a force in shaping world trade as a historic champion of free trade, a path forged globally over many centuries, and for which it was known to stand and fight its corner. Good laws that were and remain clear and transparent, and which are enforced in our courts and elsewhere without fear or favour, allowed this country in one major area, financial services, to overcome Amsterdam in the 17th century and Paris in the 18th, to be rivalled today only by another common-law area, New York. Now, with the shift in the balance of global GDP to the Indo-Pacific region, we can help shape the appetitive for free trade and, I hope, be a force for stability and the rules-based trading system that the CPTPP champions. We know that its members stretch from Canada to Peru, from Japan and Singapore to Australia and, of course, Vietnam.
This Bill will enable the necessary changes to UK law, which I welcome, so that all is ready when the treaty comes into operation—the changes needed for IP, government procurement and technical barriers to trade here so that the different conformity assessment bodies of the CPTPP, spread across different CPTPP states, will be treated on an equal footing. The impact assessment prepared by the Department for Business and Trade for the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee explains that a new delegated power is envisaged for such conformity assessment bodies and that Clause 5(3) of the Bill amends the existing delegated powers arrangements in Section 206(4) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. The new Bill gives the Secretary of State powers in Clause 2(1) to make statutory instruments to amend the subordinate legislation which places conditions on the location of the CDPA’s national treatment of conformity assessment bodies.
On IP, I welcome the extension to the eligibility criteria by which performers can qualify for rights in respect of their performances in the UK. The UK welcomes talent, and the digital provisions of the CPTPP have been welcomed as open and enabling by trade lawyers. The CPTPP departs from the trade deal with Europe primarily in its lighter protection of personal data in favour of a free flow of data. This is an area where Britain will be instrumental in championing the reforms needed to meet our data protection needs. That is another reason for bringing our influence to bear when we become the 12th member.
The CPTPP’s modern provisions on digital trade are designed to facilitate trade and underscore its attention to services trade generally. For instance, on legal services, the CPTPP has been described by one legal authority as
“among the most progressive trading arrangements in the world. Many of the barriers to trade in legal services are behind the border, including domestic regulations around licensing, certification and requalification. The CPTPP specifically encourages member countries to allow lawyers to operate on a temporary fly-in, fly-out basis and on a fully integrated basis with domestic lawyers”.
Before I conclude, may I trespass on the patience of noble Lords for a few moments and mention some of the points my noble friend Lord Trenchard would have made had he not withdrawn from the debate to be part of the group welcoming the President of the Republic of Korea? He has a particular interest in Japan and Anglo-Japanese relations. As the House will know, not only is Japan the largest economy in the CPTPP but the UK will be the second largest. If the US had stayed the course, my noble friend suggests, our accession might not have been quite so significant for Japan. He refers to the time when
“our Japanese friends felt a little hurt that some of us spoke as though our closest friend and partner for business and trade in Asia was China … the former Prime Minister … felt deeply that the old and close relationship between Japan and the United Kingdom, which was badly damaged by the events of the middle years of the 20th Century, should be restored”.
He notes that his successor has played a leading role in pushing for Britain’s membership of this trade partnership and that
“Japan was … keen to have us join, for geostrategic as much as for trade reasons … six of the eleven members are Commonwealth countries and with our accession seven”.
With those wise words from my noble friend, I thank noble Lords for their time.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to those of the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, and other noble Lords on the Foreign Secretary’s appointment to this House and his maiden speech. It was an excellent speech, as anticipated. I also commend that his first public engagement was the trip to Ukraine. It was such an important signal.
Like others in this House, I welcome this Bill and the CPTPP. It is clearly a hugely important step forward and crucial in opening up trade opportunities for British companies in significant and growing markets, which we absolutely need to do. I congratulate the Government on this agreement.
My primary interest and concerns lie in the potential impact of the agreement on the agri-food sector. I very much welcome the noble Lord’s reassurance that our standards will be protected in trade deals. He may recall that he and I had interactions on agricultural policy in his previous incarnation. I appreciate that, to some extent, I am repeating concerns that many of us raised during the passage of the Trade Bill through your Lordships’ House, but those concerns are still real and relevant. This agreement is much better on agriculture than the New Zealand and Australia deals, but there are still issues of concern.
I was actively involved in the introduction of voluntary assurance standards across the agricultural sector 30 years ago and personally helped draft the standards for beef and sheep farming. This led ultimately to full supply chain assurance and the establishment of Assured British Meat, which was chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay. It eventually led to the establishment of Assured Food Standards, which still exists and is responsible for monitoring those standards on farms. This huge voluntary initiative eventually covered all sectors of agriculture and was introduced due to a very real concern about the loss of consumer confidence through the late 1980s and early 1990s in our production systems. There was concern about the use of hormones, sow stalls, the random use of antibiotics and a relentless media focus on animal welfare issues which undermined the integrity of our production systems. There was also concern about the level of compliance with animal welfare standards and with legislation and a lack of transparency.
We banned hormones, growth promoters, the use of sow stalls in pig systems and numerous pesticides for environmental and ecological reasons. The majority of farmers have embraced the need for independent inspections of their farms to verify that the highest standards of animal welfare and husbandry are being practised. We now have global leading traceability systems in agricultural production. These measures have been embraced by farmers and growers, often with huge economic consequences. We have led the world in establishing higher standards to restore and maintain consumer confidence. We cannot put that investment at risk. We cannot jeopardise consumer confidence. We should not accept product from any exporter country that is produced to a lower standard than is acceptable and appropriate in our domestic market.
I assure the House that the noble Lord, Lord Trees, and I have not conferred, but I wholeheartedly support his comments. I also absolutely deny that what I am suggesting is protectionism. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, on the potential benefit of free trade. British farmers are not in the least afraid to compete with any country in the world, including those in this CPTPP, provided that common standards are consistently applied—I am trying very hard not to use the phrase “level playing field”.
We should aspire to be a global influencer, without being arrogant or complacent, in helping establish international standards—on the environment, greenhouse gas emissions, animal welfare and food safety—that could become a meaningful foundation for global trade. We can punch above our weight, as we have done many times in the past, and have a massive influence on global standards of food production.
I know that the Minister will want to reassure us that this is the Government’s intention, and that the CPTPP agreement includes a provision that deals will conform to our internal standards. However, concerns remain about hormone-produced beef from Canada and Mexico entering our market, the use of sow stalls, farrowing crates, tail docking in pigs, and the use of growth promoters in other countries included in the agreement. There are concerns about the high use of antibiotics and regular application of numerous pesticides that are banned here in the UK, added to which there is a continued concern about palm oil.
I do not want to sound negative, but not only have these concerns the potential to undermine our market competitiveness, but they also put at risk the consumer confidence I referred to earlier, which has been hard-won. Antibiotic use of certain pesticides could also have impact on human health. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us that rigorous auditing systems will be established to verify that equivalent standards are in place from all countries covered by this agreement. I must advise him, however, that supply chains in many countries are nothing like as transparent as our own, and that the signing of an agreement that standards are in place is not sufficient evidence without a credible audit trail.
Finally, many of us in the Chamber were successful in persuading the Government to put the Trade and Agriculture Commission on a permanent footing following an amendment to the Trade Bill, which was very welcome indeed. It has been established to scrutinise trade deals and for its views to be available for us to consider. I concur with the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, on the ability of this House to scrutinise deals. It is deeply regrettable, as the noble Lords, Lord Trees and Lord Foster, have stated, that this debate is taking place before the TAC has produced its report on the CPTPP agreement, to help inform our debate today. Hopefully, we will see the report before the Committee stage of this Bill.
Lord Livingston of Parkhead (Con)
My Lords, I would like to join others in welcoming my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton to this House. Like many others, I am here due to him. I had the great honour of being appointed as Trade Minister, so it is very appropriate we are talking about trade, particularly as my noble friend Lord Cameron was such a great proponent of trade. I joined him on many export missions around the world. Also, if there was ever somebody considering investing in the UK, the Prime Minister, as he then was, would always make time to see them. The UK during that time was the number one by a very long distance for FDI in Europe. I thank him and I welcome him. I would also like to congratulate him on his outstanding maiden speech; it is not a surprise—it is almost as if he has done this sort of thing before.
Turning now to this Bill, it is, as many noble Lords have commented, an unusual Bill, as it relates to technical implementation and there is a lot of scrutiny that still has not happened. However, I think it is important to look at the agreement as a whole and ask: why does it matter? First of all, as my noble friend Lord Lamont referred to, it matters because free trade is being pushed back upon. We have to speak up for free trade in the UK.
Why is free trade important? First, it is good for consumers—the people who seem to be forgotten so often—who get more choice and cheaper products. Competition is good for consumers. Free trade has been, is, will and would be good for consumers.
Of course, free trade is good for our exporters, giving them access to fast-growing markets and inward investment. It also raises the quality of our own industry. Exporters produce better products; they are more competitive. When they compete against other products coming from around the world, they improve their own standards, again, to the benefit of UK productivity —something which we clearly need.
Another area that often gets forgotten is that free trade is important for the development of countries. While most countries in this agreement—though not all of them—are pretty advanced, any trade agreements we do around the world, particularly the number we have in Africa, will raise standards in these countries and also help with their development. This may be even better than straightforward aid. Trade and aid together make a big difference to countries.
The President of South Korea will be speaking here; we can see what this country has done over the last five decades as a result of becoming a trading powerhouse. This agreement is also important for international relations. We will be getting closer to many countries with which we have shared and similar interests in a very important part of the world.
This particular agreement—I will probably it call “this agreement”, rather than CPTPP, as most people seem to be struggling over it no matter how many times we try and say it; it is not the best marketing brand, I have to grant you—is a good agreement. One of the things we forget is that we are acceding to this agreement; we were not part of creating it. To get such a good agreement is a great credit to the Department for Business and Trade and to the civil servants and the Ministers involved in it. I think it is an excellent agreement. We know, of course, that it gets a big reduction in tariffs on goods. It covers data and critically, services, for the UK. The UK, as has been said before, is the second-largest exporter of services in the world. It is a strength, and this, excellently, covers it.
On government procurement, UK government procurement has been reasonably open for some time, but not all other countries are the same. One of the things I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Frost, on—there were not many—is rules of origin. The rules of origin are very helpful, particularly in building up supply chains through various countries, as it can be seen would happen with this trade agreement. It is very helpful to have cumulative rules of origin.
Technical barriers to trade are also being dealt with as part of this agreement. One thing that is often not understood with trade is that tariffs are, frankly, only part of the story. The barriers to trade in areas of conformity are very important as well, and it is excellent that this is being dealt with and will hopefully be taken further from here.
The agreement also protects UK standards. One thing we should remember is that other countries look at the UK and are not happy about certain things that the UK produces. Haggis is banned in the US; they think, for some reason, that it contains things that are not healthy. It is remarkable. Marmite is banned in many countries. So, while we will be able to maintain our own standards, it is important to understand that it is not only the UK that looks at standards. As we are doing a trade deal with countries like Australia, New Zealand and Japan, I would much prefer that we are looking at maintaining standards together with them, rather than, for instance, with China, or others doing it with China. Perhaps we will set a higher world standard than we might otherwise.
The NHS is also being protected. The accusation that the NHS is going to be privatised is a bugbear that always comes around. We have had it with every single agreement. In every agreement that the UK Government have been involved in, it has been front and centre that the NHS is not an area in which privatisation would form any part of the agreement. In fact, I remember in negotiating TTIP, as it was then, the US Government said that they did not want the NHS to be part of it, the EU said the NHS would not be part of it and the UK Government said the same. Yet in every single discussion we heard, “The NHS is going to be part of it”. The NHS is not going to be part of this agreement either.
I would also like to say something about ISDS, because this is something that gets a lot of criticism, like it is just a bad thing. Why do we have ISDS at all? It is because companies invest in a country in the knowledge that, should that country’s domestic legislation attack them or their country in particular, they cannot always, particularly in certain types of countries, rely on domestic courts to protect them. That is why you have some supranational panel.
The UK has about 90 ISDS agreements already. According to the review from the UN’s trade body, UNCTAD, between 1987 and 2020, 90 UK companies took action under ISDS clauses against countries outside the UK. How many were taken against the UK? One. How many has the UK lost? None. The reason why we do not lose these is that we respect laws and treat countries favourably. That is why we should not be that bothered about Australia and New Zealand—but there are other countries where it is more problematic.
Under that UNCTAD review, Argentina has had 62 cases against it. It has been involved in expropriating without compensation, and that is the sort of thing on which people win cases under ISDS. There are some spurious cases under ISDS that people tend not to win, so just quoting cases where people have tried to take action and not won is not sufficient. I am a big supporter of ISDS and it is good that we have access to it, particularly through a modern ISDS clause.
We know that this not a replacement for the single market, so this is a bit of a spurious discussion. Of course, it is not as big or as good, but it is pointless repeating that. If you look at the countries with which we might want to do trade agreements, the US has put up the “closed” sign on trade deals with anyone. That is a great pity and a great failure of the US. It is about the one bipartisan thing you will see in the US; it does not want to do trade agreements. We will talk about China later; it has particular issues. India will be a slow process; of course we would like one with it. Basically, we are hitting most of the next tier of countries: Japan and Canada, for example.
We may be forecasting only a relatively small enhancement to GDP, but if noble Lords use the word “only” followed by a number involving billions, they have to be a bit careful—it is worth billions. These forecasts are based on relatively static assumptions. Their real focus should be on how we can get more from this agreement than these static assumptions would say. The President of South Korea was not far from here earlier, so it is worth reflecting on the agreement with his country. There was trade agreement between the EU and South Korea in 2011, when my noble friend the Foreign Secretary was the Prime Minister. Since then, our trade with South Korea has gone up by a factor of roughly three times, so trade agreements can make an enormous difference.
What the Government need to do is focus on more than this agreement, with all its perfections and imperfections; however you debate it, it is only a very small part. We need two things. First, we need a proper activation programme for the Government. That is what you would do in business: you would say, “I have an agreement; now, how do we take advantage of it?” Secondly, we need a UK education programme. The FSB, in giving evidence to the International Agreements Select Committee, highlighted that small companies do not know about trade agreements and the opportunities arising from them. We have to get out to see them.
UK middle-sized companies are also laggards. When I was Trade Minister, only one in six UK middle-sized companies exported outside the EU. You may say that that was something to do with the EU, but the figure was one in four in Germany and, even more shockingly, one in three in Italy. UK middle-sized companies need to be helped; the big companies can generally do their own thing.
Generally, businesses are also not aware of what is on offer from the Government. The Government provide a lot of help and support, but they do not make businesses aware of it. It was a failure in my time, and it remains a failure. We need to ensure that there are sufficient trade staff at our embassies and consulates. We need to ensure that there are government-supported trade trips to those countries in the sectors that are important: decide what they are and have a focus there. I would like to hear my noble friend the Minister talk about that later. We need support for trade shows, and year after year, not just once. My noble friend Lord Marland talked about trade envoys; they have done a tremendous job, so we need to reinforce their work in these countries.
Remember that trade is not just for the Department for Business and Trade; it is a pan-government effort, so we need, for example, the Ministry of Justice to push legal services, the Treasury to push financial services and Defra to push food exports—although, perhaps we should steer clear of too many speeches about cheese, as they have not always gone well. We also have to ensure that we put a lot of effort into attracting inward investment from these countries. Canadian and Australian pension funds are two of our biggest inward investors; we have to do more. This is a multi-year effort, and we need to move forward with consistency. I would like my noble friend the Minister to talk about whether the Government will set targets for how much we can do for both FDI and exports.
I know I have taken up too much time, but, finally, we also need to strive to make this agreement wider and deeper. We need to work with more countries. China has been talked about, but it should be remembered that this agreement has four of the Five Eyes countries—or eight of the 10 eyes, as you might call them. I suspect that we, along with Japan, will have similar interests regarding the role of China. Many other countries are interested in joining.
We have to work more on services, and we have to do more on product conformity, so I hope that this enabling Bill will move swiftly through the House and that we can move on to the important things. We do not know what the ceiling is on what can be achieved, but we will be better as a country if we look outwards and upwards, rather than downwards, backwards and inwards.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I join many others in offering the Green group’s welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, and will take a moment to reflect on the last time I shared a platform with our new Foreign Secretary. He might recall that it was at the Oval cricket ground in 2016. He was standing in front of a blue Mini, Harriet Harman was in front of a red Mini, Tim Farron was in front of a yellow Mini and I was in front of a green Brompton bicycle. He might take that as a lesson in what to expect from Green scrutiny of foreign issues: we take a different approach and offer fresh, new perspectives. The Green Party is the future.
In reflecting on that, I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Lamont of Lerwick. Ideas from the past—from the 19th and 20th centuries—about free trade and the desirability of more and more trade have gravely depleted our planet, heated our climate and inflicted human rights abuses, poverty and suffering on vulnerable communities and individuals, particularly women and indigenous people. The noble Lord counted the pounds in saying that the
“policy of self-sufficiency comes at a price”.
I point out that the policy of free trade at all costs has come perilously close to costing us the earth and has done huge damage to the health and well-being of billions of human beings.
Further, we are now in the age of shocks. I have noticed that, over my four years in your Lordships’ House, fewer and fewer people talk about going back to normal—some age, presumably, before the 2007-08 financial crash. Global, complex, just-in-time supply chains have gone out of fashion, for good reason. Instead of chasing maximum profits—an extra halfpenny if an item is shipped around the world for one bit of processing and then shipped back again—companies are focusing increasingly on resilience. So should Governments, particularly when it comes to food, in both their actions and policies. Rather than focusing on growth at all costs, they need to focus on security.
I turn to some specific elements of the CPTPP, starting with a point made strongly by the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, about the investor-state dispute settlement procedure, also known as the secret courts. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said last year that this presented a huge risk to essential action on the climate. A study in the journal Science found that Governments could be liable for up to $340 billion of payouts through ISDS, if they take away the essential environmental measures that we need to keep us all safe. High profile cases have seen Governments challenged by private investors over a phase-out of coal-fired power, bans on offshore exploitation of oil and gas, and moves to strengthen environmental assessments.
In reference to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Livingston, I say that taking cases and dragging through the ISD process over years at a huge cost has what the IPCC and others have identified as a chilling effect on Governments taking action, whatever the final outcome of the case, years and many millions of pounds or dollars later. That has an impact.
The UK has agreed side letters with CPTPP members Australia and New Zealand to disapply the provisions of the secret courts. The key question I put directly to the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, is about Canada, which is a particular concern. Canadian companies have been particularly litigious, having brought 65 ISDS cases, which could have a profound negative impact on the UK’s right to democratically regulate our own conditions. In October, a letter was sent by 30 NGOs and trade unions and 50 professionals from both the UK and Canada calling for an immediate negotiation for a side letter. Will the Government at least consider that, given the Canadian track record?
I also want to pick up on the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle—and I speak now as a former resident of Thailand with some awareness of the environmental and farming conditions in south-east Asia. When we look across all the CPTPP countries, we see that 119 pesticides that are banned in the UK are allowed for use in one or more of the group’s members. Many of these countries will be keen to export agri-food products to the UK, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Curry, said, this risks further undermining our farmers after the potentially disastrous impact of the Australia and New Zealand deals. Of course there will be huge pressure, again in Canada, where hormone-treated beef is used, and, as he said, there is huge public concern about that in the UK, for good reason.
I also want to pick up a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, about the end of the tariff on palm oils in Malaysia. Trade Secretary Kemi Badenoch said in March in the context of the CPTPP that palm oil was “a great product”. I am afraid it is not if you are an orangutan, a member of a critical endangered species of our close relatives, who have seen their homes destroyed and once-biodiverse rich forests storing masses of carbon turned into serried ranks of sterile plantations. Indeed, it is also not great if you are a consumer of much of that palm oil in ultra-processed products, the damage from which is being set out right at this moment upstairs, as the All-Party Parliamentary Food and Health Forum hears from Dr Chris van Tulleken, author of the best-selling book Ultra-Processed People. That pretty well describes our current diet, and we certainly do not want to make it worse.
Finally, I want to cite the very useful Trade Justice Movement briefing for today’s debate, which said that this is an important opportunity for parliamentarians to debate the flaws in the UK’s trade scrutiny process and to highlight, as the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, did, that using what I would call whiteout—possibly that is an Australianism—on scores of documents to replace “the EU” with “the UK” does not amount to “a benefit of Brexit”.
As I often say, democracy—it would be a good idea. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, highlighted, the opportunities for democratic oversight of this Government’s trade policies are severely lacking. We have to take what opportunities we can to hold the Government to account on many issues, not least our relationships with the rest of the world. I finish by promising the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, that I will be doing that particularly on the development part of his portfolio, on which he as Prime Minister had a positive record, as he did on the subject of antimicrobial resistance. I remind him that, as we learned through Covid, no one is safe until everyone is safe. Antimicrobial resistance is very much an issue that it is in our interest to tackle all around the world.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate; in doing so I declare my financial services and technology interest in Boston Ltd and Ecospend Ltd respectively.
It is more than a pleasure to welcome my noble friend the Foreign Secretary to the Front Bench in his new role. I was fortunate enough to work with the then Prime Minister in the run-up to and during the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. He was incredibly supportive, to the extent that on International Paralympic Day and with a year to go to the opening ceremony of the Games, he agreed to play in the centre of Trafalgar Square a game of tennis against the then Mayor of London, Boris Johnson. I will not trouble the House with who was the victor of that sporting clash of titans but, due to the sotto voce classical cursing which was taking place, I feared that at any point either player might pull their Achilles. My noble friend’s support, particularly for the Paralympic Games, enabled us in the summer of 2012 to put on not just such a golden summer of sport but to do something which fundamentally changed attitudes and created opportunities for disabled people in a way that has not been rivalled since. That was so much to do with his leadership as Prime Minister at that stage.
I will touch on four areas: inward investment, the role of our regulators, how we look at the IP issues, and the broader geopolitical elements of this agreement. First, to take a step back, there could barely be a more appropriate time than the year of the 300th anniversary of the birth of Adam Smith to look at this agreement. We need to review and reconsider the “wealth of nations” and how we take a broad and deep view of wealth to ensure that we have a group of trading nations which truly delivers economic, social and psychological benefits for all citizens.
We have never been more connected. We are seldom off our screens, with so-called social media taking up so much of our time, yet we see so many issues of retreatism, populism and nationalism rather than the pressing need to come together to get after so many of the existential challenges which we now face. In essence, all the significant challenges are global in nature. If we wanted to recast ESG, we should see it as “existential, seismic and global”. This agreement comes at the right time and has so much potentially to offer in bringing nations together to solve some of the greatest challenges of any time, never mind just our time.
When the Minister comes to respond, can he say something on the Government’s approach to inward investment? We really need to consider the welcome mat that we need to lay down. When people seek to invest in this nation, they need to know so much about the intricacies and the details of many multiple factors. Does he agree that it would make sense if we had a specific team in the department to deal with that issue so that we could enable such a welcome mat in real time, with all our information, to ensure that we optimise the inward investment that we can pull in?
I come to the role of our regulators—not just financial service regulators but all relevant regulators associated with this agreement. Will my noble friend the Minister agree that they have a role to connect internationally to do everything they can to potentially increase trade between all the nations within this agreement as currently set out?
The agreement talks about prioritising digital services, as rightly it should. The great potential of so much in digital is that barriers to entry for new entrants are so low. You can potentially run a global business from your bedroom with a laptop and a decent broadband connection. Would my noble friend say something about how the Government seek to progress what we were able to push through with the Electronic Trade Documents Act? It was a small Act. I was fortunate enough to be a member of the Special Bill Committee, and I have often described it as the most significant law that no one has ever heard of.
It is the most significant law because I think it is the first time that the UK Parliament—or any Parliament—has legislated for the opportunities of these new technologies, tied with our financial services ecosystem and the extraordinary good fortune of English common law, used in so many jurisdictions around the world because of its certainty, flexibility and ability to develop through precedent and case law. Passing the law was significant, but can my noble friend in concluding say something on how we can connect with all the nations in this agreement to enable all our learnings from passing the ETDA to be shared so other jurisdictions can pass similar legislation—because, as we know, it takes two to trade?
To enable physical documents to be held in electronic format and to have the physical goods, having all the customs and legal documentation and all the financials combined in real time is nothing short of transformational when it comes to international trade. Enabling transfer of title to melt from between 10 to 14 days into mere moments: that is a way to transform trade. I believe this agreement is a good opportunity to parlay with those nations to convey the benefits of passing similar electronic trade document legislation in their jurisdictions.
There is a lot in the agreement concerning IP and copyright. I specifically ask the Minister: as currently drafted, does the agreement offer equal rights for UK performers to assert their copyright and other IP rights in other nations as it does for internationals to assert such rights in the UK? I am not sure it is entirely clear in the current draft.
In conclusion, I support this agreement. In terms of international agreements, it certainly makes the heaviest use of the letter “P”, but it is none the worse for that. As other noble Lords have mentioned, we have had extraordinarily impactful international agreements in the past and they have served us well, but many of them are well in the past in their formulation and construction. It seems an opportune moment to review all these agreements to see how we can achieve the optimum for nations and for all citizens around the world, because the challenges are global and we can solve them only if we work together collaboratively, truly connected, using all our good offices and all that we have learned in the UK, connecting with all our global friends so we can all move forward and truly deliver on wealth, in the deepest, broadest sense, for all nations.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, referred to the lack of a published trade strategy by this and former Administrations. I am delighted he did so, as many times over I have attempted to have the Government at the very least publish quarterly regional trade commissioner reports. That would go a long way to assist an understanding of the opportunities and challenges that exist in any particular region.
CPTPP is rightly a cornerstone of the UK’s global trade strategy and serves useful as a prompt to be replicated with equal vigour with the important EU relationship-building exercise. Benefits of CPTPP accession can be readily identified: yes, but with qualification, to access to dynamic new markets; yes to ground-breaking digital and data provisions; yes to tariff reductions on goods; and yes to supply-chain diversification, for example. However, when scrutinised, an immediate boost for UK exports for the UK by CPTPP membership is not so immediately apparent, given that much of UK services exports already are to four major CPTPP members, and the UK having bilateral FTAs with three others.
I should state before continuing that I have never had any dealings with China and do not expect to do so. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said the question of China is of central importance, but it is in the future that substantial gains could come, should future CPTPP expansion include China. I recognise that, for the UK, it could present dilemmas on the grounds of geopolitics, human rights and China’s economic system, with prolonged accession negotiations having consequential delay for others waiting in line to join. My view is that participation would be a good thing for China, leading to domestic reform and strengthening its role in the global supply-chain cycle, in addition to creating a more stable and open regional investment environment, with the additional benefits that derive from closer partnership with a family of nations.
That is important to us all, but let there be no doubt that China would have to be fully compliant with all the terms and conditions set out in the terms before us. But better China be de-risked without constant belligerence and be at the table. There are, after all, many shared experiences on which the UK and China could work together. The UK wrote a chapter of history with our past and, without wishing to be perceived as overly self-critical and accused of double standards, ensuring that others consider history and lessons learned is something from which we could all benefit, including China. China’s strategy and practices towards Africa, Sri Lanka and, more latterly, the Solomon Islands are examples.
The UK should not be caught out on a limb. The Government have a well-rehearsed backwards and forward series of strategies over China, which include geopolitical and human rights challenges, with some suggesting that the Government might frustrate China’s CPTPP accession aspirations. There are, however, many in and from China who view the state of the world and believe China may be on the verge of adjusting policies more favourably towards the West. This shift of tides can be felt internally, with indications that China is showing more interest in its bid for CPTPP membership, does not wish to be left behind by major trading partners and is recognising that its bid will require policy changes. This should be encouraged.
It is right however, that the UK be promoting a regional vision, focusing on an open and rules-based trading system, but in lockstep with our economic security. There are many in China of the view that the UK is a country with influence with other stakeholders, such as Japan. It should be remembered that President Xi has pursued improved relations with Japan’s Prime Minister Kishida, placing emphasis on shared economic interests and giving rise to hope that China might be preparing for a degree of flexibility in its talks on CPTPP membership. That preceded the more recent, equally positive, meeting with President Biden in San Francisco.
I suggest that we all watch with keen interest what transpires from the upcoming EU-China summit. We live in a complex world, with world powers not currently aligned on many values. While ideological change can be a long journey for the UK and US, by contrast, China’s power structure can allow for change to happen more quickly. It will be hard for some, but the UK should not be blind to a policy reset and recognise that a by-product of peace and coexistence is international trade. As the noble Lord, Lord Howell, pointed out, it is all about diplomacy and tolerance. That is surely why we are gathered here today.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Cameron on taking on the role of Foreign Secretary. Let us never underestimate overseas Governments: they know who has influence in foreign affairs and who does not. They also know when they meet somebody who has influence in this country and overseas, so it is really great news. I have also had a lot of opportunities to see my noble friend Lord Johnson at work on the investment side. I can tell your Lordships that it is mightily impressive.
I welcome this Second Reading, as the CPTPP provides the UK with a truly unrivalled opportunity to deepen our economic ties with some of the world’s most dynamic and progressive economies. Like others here, I am a true believer in free trade. I have therefore felt a lot of excitement in following the UK’s accession to the CPTPP as it has progressed through your Lordships’ International Agreements Committee; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, went into that in some detail.
There are a couple of points that I want to pull out. I think we need—and I welcome clarity on—rules of origin, specifically in areas where existing FTAs are in place, so that UK businesses can ascertain more easily whether there would be more benefit in them trading under localised bilateral agreements or through the CPTPP itself. Further to this, I have highlighted that the Government need to take bolder action in securing more generous local content thresholds in order to protect UK manufacturers. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide some reassurance that mitigating industry’s concerns in these important areas will remain a priority for this Government as the Bill progresses.
By fostering an environment of free and open trade, the CPTPP promotes economic growth and encourages innovation, benefiting UK businesses both large and small. It opens doors for collaboration in areas that are important to the UK economy, such as innovation, technology and research. It is my hope that, through connecting with economies that are at the forefront of technological advancement today, the CPTPP will allow the UK to stimulate innovation and create high-skilled jobs, and allow us to remain a competitive force in the global marketplace.
Picking up on conformity assessments, I am pleased that the Bill will enhance regulatory co-operation between the UK and other countries, for trade agreements of any kind are pointless if they do not seek to reduce costs and bureaucracy for our domestic businesses at every possible opportunity.
We have touched a little on consumer rights. It is important to acknowledge that, as we are acceding to an existing agreement, the Government were limited in seeking the types of amendments that some would have sought; many people have made this point. I, for one, remain entirely satisfied that the Government have proven that they remain committed to ensuring that our high standards and protections, and the rights of the consumer, will be safeguarded in this agreement. However, I urge the Government to seek further joint statements on a bilateral basis, like the joint statement on sustainable agricultural commodity trade with Malaysia, to demonstrate that the United Kingdom’s reputation as a socially responsible and forward-thinking trading partner remains intact.
That is all the good stuff. Now, if I may, I will offer a bit of criticism; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, picked up on this point. We live in an era when technology is advancing at an unprecedented rate. Business needs quick access to the latest information for trade. It is therefore disappointing that our Government’s website, GOV.UK, falls well short in providing easy, accessible trade-related information. My request to my noble friend Lord Johnson is that he will get his department to ensure that our website equals the gold standard of other countries’ websites. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Frost will not be happy to hear this, but even the EU is better than the UK at this—but the accepted gold standard seems to be Australia. Trade agreements are absolutely pointless if businesses are not able to go through the door and trade. It must be easy to trade and get information; it is essential for SMEs that this is the case. This is a real plea that we make sure that all the information we need is easily accessible and understandable.
As we attempt to navigate the choppy waters of international affairs and the increasing complexities of global trade in an increasingly dangerous world, it is important to acknowledge the strategic importance of our accession to this agreement. Although, by the Government’s own assessment, the economic benefits of the UK’s accession will initially be small, our accession to the CPTPP signals our long-overdue tilt to the Asia-Pacific region and, in my view, the starting point of forging stronger bilateral economic and security ties with other major economies, including Japan, Canada and Australia. For the United Kingdom, the CPTPP ensures that our businesses will have increased access to markets that were previously characterised by high tariff barriers. By reducing these barriers, promoting regulatory co-operation and leading the CPTPP nations in promoting innovation and sustainability, our accession offers a significant opportunity for this country. I therefore very much support what I believe to be an exciting journey that we are on.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I begin by joining others in welcoming the Secretary of State to his new position and congratulating him on his maiden speech. His standing can only enhance the reputation of your Lordships’ House.
This trade agreement is one of the residues left from the Department for International Trade, now disbanded and currently within the Department for Business and Trade. The department could well have been characterised then as rather reticent to stand up for UK interests, especially British livelihoods and the prevailing standards to which all domestic production must adhere. It seemed to rush through deals with all countries that trade with the UK. It also persisted in maintaining the extraordinary executive principle and stuck to the CRaG process of endorsing trade deals, originally set up before Brexit, when authority and jurisdiction ultimately rested with the EU. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, was correct in his assessment of the continuing appropriateness of the CRaG process. What prominence does international trade now have within the wider business department, with what budget and what headcount?
I join others in calling on the Secretary of State to outline the timetable and process for the ratification schedule that your Lordships’ House will have following this legislation. As well as being opaque, the CRaG process allows for a vote in the Commons only, following a debate outlining specific concerns. Will the Government at least mirror this process in your Lordships’ House? I thank your Lordships’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its report on the Bill and ask the Secretary of State to reply further on these technical issues.
The department’s impact assessment does not seem to examine critically the effects of this trade deal on existing trade with others—most notably members of the Commonwealth, seven members of which are in this agreement. In that regard, the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Marland, were well made. The UK has concluded a side letter with Australia and now New Zealand, as CPTPP parties, to disapply these provisions. What percentage of the estimated benefits from concluding the deal will now no longer apply? Of course, the UK has concluded a separate and possibly damaging one-sided trade deal with both Australia and New Zealand. Do this and other agreements rather undermine the merits of this treaty? Will this lead towards preference access arrangements being eroded on certain foods, such as bananas, that are vital to the interests of certain Commonwealth cultures? Certain other provisions, such as investor state dispute settlement provisions, have also raised alarm. Can the Minister commit the Government to seeking a side letter with Canada to disapply the use of such provisions between Canada and the UK and to maintain the UK’s right to regulate in its public interest?
When the House previously debated this agreement following ministerial statements, many questions were asked around the potential membership of China. Can the Minister expand on the process that China would need to follow and what procedures exist for the UK to take a full role to veto such an application if it was required and should it still be necessary to safeguard the integrity of existing relationships? Australia has already said that it would not endorse China’s application while China continues to block the import of Australian goods.
On one of these previous occasions, I asked the then Minister—not the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, I hasten to add—whether the Government would give a commitment to safeguard trade with Taiwan. As the Minister will know, the UK has an enhanced trade partnership arrangement with Taiwan. I cannot say that my confidence was raised by the reply. Taiwan is one of the most advanced places in its innovations and skills in the technology and communications sector. Can the Minister now give the House confidence that the UK will continue to support the continuing independence of Taiwan from interference from China and safeguard present and future trade with Taiwan in all circumstances? What effect will the CPTPP have on trade with Taiwan?
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, in his opening remarks, greatly emphasised that UK standards would be maintained across all food, animal welfare and environmental conditions. Here I declare my interest as having a dairy farm which is still receiving some residues of payments under the basic payment scheme. I do not entirely share the continuing endorsements that standards will be maintained, since all Ministers repeat this mantra rather too glibly. As my noble friend the shadow Minister asked, what safeguards will there be to follow up on these statements? The Government have already resisted amendments to underpin this commitment on a statutory basis, insisting that present agencies such as the Food Standards Agency exist for this purpose.
During the passage of the then Trade Bill, the Government conceded the appointment of a Trade and Agriculture Commission, opposed by the noble Lord, Lord Curry, who spoke about this well in his remarks. However, the then Secretary of State requested advice from the TAC only in mid-July this year. The TAC call for evidence concluded only in mid-August, and its report on this trade deal has yet to be published. That report will be important for your Lordships’ House to consider carefully. Can the Minister commit to replying to that report, publishing that reply immediately and, most notably, it being available for this House to study in Committee, to inform our deliberations?
As has been noted, your Lordships’ International Agreements Committee also has an ongoing inquiry. Surely it is important that all these committees and agencies be engaged in the process before the Government fully endorse any trade deal. Full transparency of all evidence and effects is paramount in all legislation and should be included in all impact assessments. In this regard, the geographical indicators provisions in the agreement are important and have some alarm attached to them.
Are there any independent inspection regimes that will be conducting investigations on the various countries party to the deal? Will the UK rely only on the exporting countries’ institutions to undertake certification of standards? Will any authority in this country be set up to assess these agencies for recognition and be able to inspect and assess the relevant countries’ assessments of their standards and whether these are necessarily sufficient and accurate? How would such arrangements work? In this, I recognise the lengths that the EU pursues in its assessment of standards that would be needed to qualify access in the EU. What powers would the Food Standards Agency have once a complaint was received regarding an imported product? I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, for his remarks on this point. What protections will be written into the final agreement —that no divergence of supplies from countries outside of this agreement, such as China, can be re-routed to the UK, via intermediaries such as Vietnam? There are still many concerns to be addressed.
In concluding, I welcome all opportunities to increase trade and any advantages that this country can gain through exports and improving the choice and quality of goods that can be imported into this country. However, let us get the process right and be sustainable. The terms of trade must be beneficial and allow for greater prosperity for everyone, including our footprint on the planet. The Department for Business and Trade needs to enhance present support for business to secure these benefits—and that includes agriculture.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, on his excellent maiden speech.
I am speaking at Second Reading because I support this Bill and the sensible changes that it makes to our domestic laws, which will enable us to take full advantage of this agreement. I am particularly keen to talk about the benefits to our SMEs, both exporters and importers, how it will enhance our trading relationship with Peru, and the multiple ancillary benefits to the wider UK community. I refer the House to my entry in the register of interests.
Prior to having the honour and privilege of joining your Lordships’ House, I spent over 20 years advising and winning business from around a third of the companies in the FTSE 100. I greatly enjoyed my trips to Derby to see Rolls-Royce and Farnborough to see BAE, two of our leading UK exporters. For the past few years, my attention has migrated to SMEs. This focus has made me realise that while our large, listed businesses of course make amazing contributions to the economy and employment, SMEs are the lifeblood of our nation. I speak daily to these firms and am constantly dazzled by their entrepreneurial spirit, their determination, their grit and their ability to innovate and adapt on what can often be a very bumpy ride. It is these enterprises which we hope will grow to be the future Rolls-Royces and BAEs. We should do everything that we can to support them. The Bill and the agreement behind it aim to achieve that.
The Minister—my noble friend Lord Johnson of Lainston—enjoys statistics, so please allow me to share some. UK exports are now at the highest level that we have seen in our history, £882 billion year on year as of September 2023. The Government’s strategy is to achieve £1 trillion of exports by 2030, so we are comfortably on track to exceed that target. In 2023, 84% of the businesses directly supported by our excellent UK Export Finance—some 529 companies—were SMEs. This is the highest annual figure on record and represents a steady uptrend in UK Export Finance’s support for SMEs since 2019.
These numbers are significant and to be proud of, but I will give you what I believe is the most important statistic of them all. If you were to go to Companies House today, you would find around 5.4 million firms registered. Of those, only 8.8% export at all. Through the Bill and agreement, we have an opportunity to increase that number significantly. We are starting from a low base, so it is much easier to incrementally grow that 8.8% to, let us say, 20% and higher in the longer term. This will deliver major benefits to the UK economy and workforce.
CPTPP membership will give us access to 15% of global GDP and to some of the world’s most material markets in the Americas and Asia-Pacific. I can see only upside to helping our great UK companies export, and the Bill and agreement will play an important part in that. The Institute of Directors’ feedback on the Bill was:
“Anything that makes it easier for British businesses to export is good news”.
I should also flag the benefits to our importers. Only a few weeks ago, I was speaking to a business owner who is investigating how to import chemicals from one of the CPTPP countries to manufacture his product in the UK. He needs to diversify his supplier base and the Bill will help give him greater access to the global supply chain.
Finally, due to my involvement with Peru, allow me to give you some examples of how both the UK and Peru will benefit from this agreement. Tariffs of 11% will be eliminated on UK exports of beef and tariffs of mostly 6% will be eliminated on UK exports of poultry. At the same time, we in the UK can take advantage of cheaper import prices for Peru’s incredible and diverse array of fresh fruit and juices, which I personally enjoy, as well as chemical and manufacturing inputs to name but a few. UK business visitors will enjoy an extended length of stay in Peru and we will enjoy greater transparency for British investors in Peruvian companies and their directors.
Our exports to Peru were £370 million in 2022, which represented a 46% increase year on year. There is no reason why we cannot continue to grow strongly. I hope, as part of the CPTPP, we will expand and continue to work together in sectors such as mining, energy, finance and tourism.
I truly believe that we have an opportunity here to help our FTSE and AIM companies, our SMEs, our exporters and our importers to create large amounts of new UK jobs over time and collaborate with our partners in the CPTPP, so that everyone benefits.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, trade has always been a subtle and underrated form of foreign policy and, before he leaves, I welcome the new Foreign Secretary to the House for this debate, and I wish him well. He has just returned from Ukraine and I hope that, as a by-product of the war with Russia, this Government will work more closely with Europe, not only in defence but in trade and international development.
I recognise that this legislation is technical but, like others, I have questions about where the Bill fits within the UK’s trade scrutiny policy, and I wish to seek clarity on certain aspects of the agreement. I particularly acknowledge the help of Trade Justice Movement.
It is nearly a year since I left the International Agreements Committee, but I well remember our first meetings with the Minister—he is very friendly—which were chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. I am glad to see her, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, back today. I also welcome back the Trade Minister as one of the Government’s survivors from the last 12 months. Today I shall take him back to some of our previous conversations about scrutiny, deforestation and food standards. I must also say that we all miss the unique personality of the late noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, who was nothing less than a stalwart on the subject of agriculture and especially the too often ignored interests of the Welsh uplands.
With regard to scrutiny, as others have said, I regret that the CRaG process by which the CPTPP and other trade treaties are ratified remains unfit for purpose. Parliament should have more input into shaping the UK’s negotiating objectives and should have sight of negotiating texts as talks progress. That is important behind-the-scenes business. There is international precedent for this in the US Congress. I agree with my noble friend Lord Kerr that we need a debate on trade strategy. That point has been made already.
I understand that accession to the CPTPP is a little different from the negotiation of a new trade treaty, but increased scrutiny will improve and not hinder our trade outcomes. Red lines established by Parliament could strengthen the hands of negotiators, so I hope the Minister will give us some reassurance that there will be a vote on a substantive Motion on accession and that it will be held in another place during the CRaG period.
As the noble Lord, Lord Foster, said, there is also a procedural question regarding timing, given that CRaG has not yet commenced. We are debating legislation that implements an agreement to which Parliament has not yet consented and on which the committee is still taking evidence. It does not have to be like this; is it not rather illogical? Can the Minister explain why the Government have introduced the Bill so far ahead of CRaG? It could have been the other way round.
On NGOs, the Minister may recall his response to a Written Question that he gave me in July: that the department had carried out one of the most thorough consultation exercises ever. But this is not the story I hear from the NGOs. They refer to the system set up originally by the DIT to generate dialogues, such as the trade advisory groups or TAGs, which are still not working properly. Does the Minister agree that these systems must be improved if we are going to have outside opinion?
On specific aspects of the agreement, there is still widespread concern about the effect of reduced tariffs, for example on expanding palm oil imports leading to deforestation. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned this. It is occurring in several member states, notably Indonesia and Malaysia. I have read the joint declaration on sustainable agriculture with Malaysia, which is obviously —at least potentially—a notable advance. I expect that the Minister will mention that.
I have also read the impact assessment, which says:
“The agreement is not expected to have a significant impact on wider environmental issues, such as biodiversity”
and “deforestation”, but it admits that Malaysia has suffered a huge 29% fall in tree cover over the last 20 years, owing to agricultural commodities such as palm oil and, of course, international trade. Can the Minister explain how the department can monitor British companies and the many supply chains that are engaged in those giant operations? Does he know of companies practising due diligence in the CPTPP countries? It may be an unequal agreement. In the countries concerned, such as Malaysia, should the Government work more closely with local NGOs, which often have experience on the ground and the capacity to work in partnership?
As for food standards, we shall have to wait for the TAC and the FSA. I do not envy them examining so many countries. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, mentioned veterinary standards, and the noble Lord, Lord Curry, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned divergent standards on pesticides. Are the Government concerned that other member states will gain a competitive advantage from these divergences? The noble Lord, Lord Collins, mentioned earlier that there is also deep disquiet from the Canadian meat industry regarding the UK’s regulations on hormone-treated beef. What are the prospects of the UK making concessions in this area?
I turn to human rights. I heard the new Foreign Secretary’s reassurance, but I have to take the Minister back to the India free trade agreement, on which the committee took evidence during the previous year. We had an interesting session with the department’s negotiating team and I vividly recall the lead negotiator’s attitude to human rights. It was simple: this agreement is about trade, not human rights. Human rights was not in his vocabulary, and he was the negotiator. I do not think he had even read the impact assessment. In case this negotiator is still representing the UK, I think I must repeat what some of us said at the time: trade is not just about finance and investment. It is a relationship between states based on a range of criteria such as climate, standards and moral values. These issues are constantly discussed between friends. They are important even when the UK economy badly needs—as we know it does—support from trade agreements such as the CPTPP. They are not in contradiction with one another.
Finally, on 16 July there was a joint statement with five members of the CPTPP on the environment and sustainable development. It ignored human rights. It mentioned labour rights and indigenous rights in passing, but there was nothing about governance or the rule of law, let alone supply chains and minority rights.
There is a lot to catch up with, and we look forward to subsequent debates at the stages of the Bill. I thank the Minister for his listening powers and I look forward to his answers to at least some of these questions.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I apologise that I was required in other meetings for much of the afternoon; I look forward to reading many of the contributions. I did have the pleasure of hearing my noble friend the Foreign Secretary and the opening speeches. It is 34 years since he and I first worked together, and I look forward to resuming the pleasure of working with him in this House.
One of his actions as Prime Minister was to nominate me to chair the UK-Japan 21st Century Group, so I declare my registered interest as co-chair. While I was listening to my noble friend Lord Lamont, I thought, happily, that I could reduce the scope of my speech by simply saying that I agree with him about the benefits that accrue to this country from free trade agreements, of which this is one, and the particular benefits associated with the opportunities in such a fast-growing part of the world in terms of services trade and digital trade. The CPTPP is the most advanced regional agreement on digital trade, but countries within it with which we have bilateral agreements, such as Singapore, give us hope that CPTPP will be, once more, a leader in developing digital trade. I very much look forward to that. That will, no doubt, be even more advanced if we bring Korea into the CPTPP in future. With the President of the Republic of Korea here today, I am sure that will have featured in our discussions.
I will not detain the House very long, and there is a risk of me repeating what has been said by others, but I want to say a number of things about the process, and the technical characteristics of the Bill, which I hope we will return to at subsequent stages.
First, on the process, I was rather heartened by the discussions we had last week; I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for those discussions and his subsequent letter. It is important for us—I speak as a former member of the International Agreements Committee and following the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, who was also a member of that committee—to recognise that we had an opportunity to report in preparation for the negotiations on the negotiating mandate. That led, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, rightly said, to some steps in the negotiating process that managed to deal with one or two of the problems that would otherwise have been in the document—the treaty itself—and that is rather important for us. I must confess that I have to depart from the noble Lord; I think the fact that we are not seeking to derogate from the investor-state dispute settlement provisions is a very good thing. We are a country that invests very widely, and is invested in very widely. My Japanese friends invest substantially here and around the world, and our accession to the CPTPP would have been much more difficult if we had sought to depart from ISDS provisions. As a country, we have never been successfully challenged on an investor-state dispute settlement, but I think many British companies that invest around the world would wish us to be participating in and promoting ISDS.
On the ratification process, we are still getting used to this after we left the European Union; part of the structure of that is waiting for the Trade and Agriculture Commission to report. On the assumption that it does so in the next few weeks and the Government respond relatively promptly, that should then—after a delay of maybe up to 10 days—permit the Government to notify the accession to CRaG under the legislation and give an opportunity for the International Agreements Committee, the chair of which I can see in his place, what it expects, which is an opportunity to report on the treaty and to ask the House either to consider it or to have a debate. That might reasonably all be completed before 16 July 2024, which is one year after the signature and, therefore, within the timeframe to which we have committed ourselves to complete the ratification process.
It is not easy to work out how these things work, but I think it is quite helpful for both Houses to decide whether they support ratification at a point when they have heard from the Trade and Agriculture Commission and their relevant Select Committees, and when the House has decided whether it is happy to put the necessary domestic legislation in place. That is what this Bill is about: putting the necessary domestic legislation in place. In that respect, when we come to debate it on Report and particularly in Committee, I hope we can explore a few issues.
First, as my noble friend knows, the provisions on procurement in Schedule 2 go wider than what is presently in the Procurement Act. Noble Lords who were involved in that Act will think it was not very long ago that we wrote all that stuff, and now we are having to change it. I think we will need to know why we are changing it and appear to be widening it. I am not concerned with the timing because, if that Act does not come into force until October 2024, we already have amendments to the Public Contracts Regulations that allow the necessary steps to have been taken. I think that is a legitimate question for us to debate on this Bill, because the language is different.
Secondly, noble Lords involved in these negotiations will be aware that we secured commitments on the part of Japan and Australia to enable us to have geographical indicators accepted in those countries. In this legislation we are extending what is in effect geographical indicator status to other CPTPP countries. I hope this will be an opportunity for us to ensure that we are making progress in a reciprocal fashion, because geographical indicators are very important, whether it is Lincolnshire sausages or any other product.
The final issue I want to mention is copyright. It is a difficult area, but I hope noble Lords who are perhaps more expert in it than I am will be able to explore why we again seem to be extending a power for Ministers to enable a country to be treated as the qualifying country, which will then allow rights holders to access what is called equitable remuneration in this country as though they were UK rights holders, in a way that appears to be wider than necessary for CPTPP countries and rather wider than has been the case in the past.
Those are simply issues that I hope we will have the opportunity to turn to in Committee, but I do not want any of them to detract from the fact that I very much welcome the CPTPP accession and all that goes with it, and the potential it offers. I am very glad that the Government have brought this legislation forward for that purpose.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to be able to speak in the gap. The UK’s accession to the CPTPP is a golden opportunity to usher in a new era of trade relations in some of the world’s more dynamic and fast-growing economies. This Bill is to be welcomed.
I will focus on the specialty insurance sector, and I refer to my interest as an employee of Marsh, as stated in the register. Without insurance, much of this trade would not be able to happen. The capital which comes into the London market of specialty insurance and reinsurance is highly international and highly mobile. Almost 70% of it is foreign owned and 85% of market income is earned by companies domiciled outside the UK.
Now, at the advent of this new trading frontier, is the time to consider what more government, regulators and industry could do together to both access these fast-growing markets and encourage and welcome investment from these countries to the UK. The UK has a unique offer to CPTPP nations, many of which are at heightened risk from natural disasters and other risks. We are the only market that has the concentration of capital and expertise to protect nations against existential threats to their economies and people. Our offer is not replicated anywhere else in the world.
The financial regulators were given an international competitiveness objective within the Financial Services and Markets Act. CPTPP membership now offers us the chance to put theory into practice, but this will happen only if the financial regulators play an active role in deepening the UK’s relationships with our CPTPP partners, co-ordinating with regulators and businesses to promote cross-border trade.
What the industry would like to see is a welcome mat, as described by my noble friend Lord Holmes and alluded to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith: a dedicated and joined-up function within government that can create a coherent and co-ordinated pathway—a one-stop shop—for overseas investors wanting to come to the UK, set up businesses, create jobs and invest across the country. This is not some untried and untested idea; many of our closest competitors have teams with similar arrangements, including the Bermuda Business Development Agency and the Monetary Authority of Singapore. My home was in Ireland originally, where its foreign direct investment agency is making notable progress in encouraging high levels of inward investment and consequent employment—modest, maybe, by UK standards, but very important to Ireland.
Business as usual is no longer good enough. Let us seize the opportunity as the first new joiner of this dynamic trading bloc to welcome new and emerging economies to industries such as the London insurance market and show them exactly why we are a world leader in risk. I therefore ask my noble friend the Minister two questions. First, will he comment on what discussions he is having with UK regulators and what expectations he is setting about the role they will play within CPTPP structures to encourage cross-border trade in financial and professional services as our relationships within the bloc deepen? Secondly, will he look at how we can build this welcome mat approach, as it will require cross-departmental working between his department and others?
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Razzall alluded to, this has been a longer debate than it probably would have been had not the Secretary of State, who has now departed the Chamber, been involved. However, it has been a very interesting debate, and I dare say never have so many “t”s, “p”s and “c”s been used in your Lordships’ House—most of them in the right order, so very well done all of you.
Despite the clumsy branding, this really is an important development in UK international trade. It must have been important because the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, chose it for his charming, graceful and amusing maiden speech, for which he has received universal plaudits, to which I add my name. It is a shame that he had to leave before the denouement of this debate, but I am sure he will be beating a path to Hansard in the morning. We look forward to many opportunities to hear from him and ask him questions in your Lordships’ House.
We heard from the chair of the International Agreements Committee, of which I am also a member, about how we should be scrutinising this treaty, and we heard many other pleas from your Lordships about how we have an opportunity to have meaningful and proper scrutiny. One thing that has not been noted is that the change in the machinery of government, to which the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, referred, has changed the Select Committee structure, which means that we no longer have a designated trade Select Committee, which further dilutes the amount of scrutiny we are getting.
This has been a proxy debate: we have been debating the treaty without any of the proper information we need, and many of us have been somewhat ignoring the actual substance of the debate. We thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for belatedly pushing our nose to the grindstone while looking at the technical issues in the Bill, which we are supposed to be debating. However, the debate we are having about this Bill is more of a debate than the Commons got on the Australian deal. That was promised and never given, so we have to take the opportunities when we can get them, but we should not be begging Ministers and the Government for Parliament’s right properly to scrutinise this really important trade deal.
I turn to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. The name is an indication of the journey it has taken: with every step it has made, another letter has been added to its acronym. We should also note that it is, uniquely, a trade organisation designed by the United States but of which the United States is likely never to be a member. However, it was interesting to hear last week the US Chamber of Commerce—its largest business organisation —berate successive US Governments for not doing trade deals, so you never know; maybe something will turn up.
However, we should bear in mind that design hand that went into this organisation, because there are differences between a bloc with essentially US systems and processes, and us, with essentially EU systems and processes. It was interesting to hear the noble Lord, Lord Trees, set out the gradient between those two ways of looking at standards. I believe that we will see more of this. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, also referred to those differences and disparities. It is something we should be very concerned about and, if we have the opportunity to scrutinise it, we should get under the skin of it.
We know that the Government’s projected benefits for this treaty are relatively tiny—everybody has mentioned that. Frankly, if they were aiming to meaningfully boost trade the Government would have been better employed reversing our decline in exports to Germany, where we have fallen from number two to number nine. Perhaps, given the dexterity of our Minister, he could even try to do both at once.
With this backdrop of only a small nudge in trade, it is no wonder that so many in your Lordships’ House have emphasised the politics and the new focus on Asia-Pacific. I see this point and recognise its importance; I think we all do. We look forward to further discussions on this and its implications—politically, economically and in security terms.
Going back to the case at hand, during the run-up to the accession to the Australian FTA, there was much concern regarding agriculture. There were and are still significant concerns that in order to get that deal, the UK conceded too much on animal welfare and environmental concerns. As we have heard from the noble Lords, Lord Trees and Lord Curry, there are similar concerns that UK farming standards could and would be compromised by this agreement. Additionally, UK pesticide standards could and would be undermined. There are 119 pesticides that are banned in the UK that are allowed to be used in one or more CPTPP member states. We are back to this gradient again—to the differences in the way standards are operated in our respective organisations.
The Australian deal kicked off this spring. What have we learned so far from the Australian experience? Perhaps the Minister could set out how he sees reciprocal opportunities for British farmers, not just in Australia but in the whole of the CPTPP, and what his department and Defra will be doing to organise themselves so that we can take advantage of those opportunities and get some British food on CPTPP plates. As many noble Lords have noted, this will need a bit of export oomph.
Many of us watched with admiration how Australia stood up to the Chinese when China launched politically motivated and punitive tariffs on some of its products. The Aussie response was not to launch tit-for-tat tariffs against the much bigger China; instead, it weathered the storm by getting out and selling its products to other places and other countries. Now China has started to withdraw those tariffs.
Looking beyond agriculture, this country needs to be able to be on the front foot, like Australia was, when it comes to trade. There seems to be a lot of work to do. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, and others about what needs to be done and the inadequacy of where we are now. As we have heard, small and medium-sized companies make up half the economy. When we were taking evidence from their representatives, it was clear that they do not feel they are getting the support and the help they need to get the activation energy they need to export things.
It was hard enough when Brexit happened; indeed, many small businesses have stopped exporting because they have not got over that barrier. But getting their products to Vietnam is a whole order of magnitude harder, and the Government need to be at least one order of magnitude, if not two, better at giving them the help they need. So can the Minister acknowledge that there is a huge amount of work to be done by his and other departments? If he does not, the export opportunities will not be taken up and, frankly, what is the point of a trade deal if you do not trade?
The risks of inadequately exploiting the opportunities extend beyond domestic farmers. The first thing I will point out is the treatment of workers, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Collins. While the Government are flirting with ILO violations with their strikes Bill, these infractions pale in comparison with those seen in countries such as Brunei, Mexico and Vietnam. How do the Government intend to deal with non-ILO-compliant economies and their products?
Meanwhile, there is a real danger to the UK’s commitment to the sustainable development goals, in that they could be undermined by the CPTPP. Since Brexit, the UK has been mindful of developmentally sensitive products, including bananas—here we are in “fruit territory”. We have to be careful to maintain the value of trade preferences when designing unilateral trade policies, including the UK’s global tariff and the recently launched developing countries trading scheme.
In recent bilateral and multilateral trade negotiations, however, there has been a less consistent approach. The market access schedules for bananas—I am using bananas as one example of such products—negotiated as part of the UK’s accession to the CPTPP included concerning concessions. As I am sure the noble Earl opposite knows, the UK granted a reduced tariff to both Peru and Mexico, and slightly lowered concessions for other CPTPP members. While at present Peru and Mexico are relatively marginal suppliers to the UK market, the change threatens to set a precedent. The same point was made earlier—if they do it for one, when we are negotiating another deal, perhaps with a central American country that has a much stronger and larger banana export market, we are undermining the market access provided via economic partnership agreements to least developed countries. This jeopardises our sustainable development goals. Will the Minister comment on how that is being addressed and what his department expects to happen in that area?
The UK economy has a much larger service sector, as we have heard, than its manufacturing sector. FTAs traditionally stumble when it comes to the services part of exports and imports; I would like the Minister to reflect a little on that. In particular, I would like to look at where we stand on future mutual recognition of qualifications, because services are driven by things such as mutual recognition of qualifications. It would be good if the Minister could explain where we are. Will that be dealt with through CPTPP or will there need to be bilateral or other ways of actually delivering that?
Another way that services work is through short-term visits by our professionals into those territories. It is not 100% clear to me where we are on short-term visas to facilitate that kind of work.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, set out some issues on data localisation. It is important to have some idea of how far we can take this, because that will be the blood that makes services flow through the system.
My noble friends Lord Razzall and Lord Foster set out really important concerns regarding the IP and GI sections of this Bill. I hope the Minister has been listening and takes on board the concerns we have here.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is also correct on procurement. We spent a lot of time talking about procurement; we suffered more amendments from a Government than I think has ever happened before, yet straight away the Government are turning their backs on some of what we decided. That is not unique, by the way—in the negotiations for the Swiss free trade agreement for mutual recognition of qualifications, they also turned their backs on aspects of the Professional Qualifications Bill that we also worked on. There is a disconnect along the line here sometimes; we spend many hours scrutinising legislation and then a bunch of trade negotiators go off and ignore the legislation. Why and how is this allowed to happen? There is a bigger question, as well as the individual question that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, raised.
I look at the time and I have already talked for too long, so I will sit down. I look forward to the Minister’s response to this debate and to Committee stage. But, most of all, I look forward to us having meaningful scrutiny of this treaty.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, it is always the detail. This afternoon we have had many thoughtful and detailed contributions for which I thank your Lordships. Let us have a look at the detail but, before I start, I first welcome the new Foreign Secretary to his place—or maybe not to his place, but we understand why he is not with us for these closing remarks. My only interaction with the new noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, was through the National Citizen Service, which he set up when Prime Minister. I had the privilege of replacing my noble friend Lord Blunkett on the NCS board and of working with it, its chair Brett Wigdortz, the CEO and the staff to deliver many fantastic programmes and opportunities for young people across the country. NCS worked and continues to do so, and I wish it all the best.
As Nick Thomas-Symonds MP, then our shadow Trade Minister, said when debating the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership earlier this year:
“We on the Labour Benches are pro-trade, pro-business and pro-worker. Accessing new markets is essential, and it is particularly welcome because of the Government’s dreadful record on trade. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that UK exports are due to fall by 6.6% this year, which is a more than £51 billion hit to the UK economy”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/4/23; col. 44.]
It is not a great starting point when, on the Government’s own measures, as we have heard, the economic benefits of joining the CPTPP are negligible, adding a projected £2 billion, or less than 0.08%, to UK GDP over the next 10 years, so it is no wonder that we have rightly concentrated on some of the political benefits which we share. No amount of minor trade agreements will make up for this Government’s economic mismanagement.
In saying that, like many across the House I welcome the economic ties with Canada, east Asia and the Pacific. In line with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, earlier, I say that it is vital that the UK plays a role in ensuring that development in one of the fastest-growing regions in the world benefits British business, British consumers and British workers. Lowering barriers to trade is good news, but there is a balance to be struck, and we have heard some of that across the House. Hearing from business organisations, it is clear that CPTPP membership will bring some noticeable improvements, particularly around digital trade and rules of origin for manufacturers.
I welcome the opportunity to speak today, but I am conscious of the fact that what we are discussing in the Bill is not the agreement itself but rather a handful of changes in domestic law to facilitate what has already been signed up to by the Government. I join my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith in calling for a full debate across your Lordships’ House. It seems clear to me that, in this day and age, Parliament needs and deserves a greater role in structuring, scrutinising and ratifying trade deals.
A number of the clauses in the Bill pertain to the devolved Administrations. It is always a bit strange when winding up trying to find something new. I do not think we have had many questions about the devolved Administrations, so they are possibly something new for the Minister. What engagement has his department had with the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Government? What stage are we at with seeking legislative consent from the devolved authorities? Are we seeking concurrent powers? Are His Majesty’s Government listening and responding to any of the devolved authorities’ concerns?
Without such powers for all the Parliaments of the UK, trade will remain reserved for members of the Cabinet and, as we have seen in recent years, too often trade policy has been dictated by Conservative leadership hopefuls looking for a quick, but ultimately insubstantial, win. Just look at the free trade agreements with New Zealand and Australia which predated this. Our farmers in a decade’s time will suffer as a result of the hastily negotiated FDAs—I use “negotiated” in the loosest possible sense. At these very Dispatch Boxes, when discussing the FTAs with New Zealand and Australia we were told not to worry and that there would be no detriment to British farmers or our manufacturers. That is now patently untrue.
While the Tories are looking for the headlines, we need to look at the detail, and your Lordships’ House is particularly good at going through the fine print. What do we find there? In most of the areas, CPTPP membership does not in itself represent an improvement on pre-existing bilateral deals. Multiple organisations have pointed to potential issues with regard to the environment, food standards and workers’ rights. Let me take them in order.
With regard to the environment, the impact assessment of the Government’s Department for Business and Trade states on page 79 that:
“Deforestation in CPTPP countries, where it occurs, has been driven by production of commodities such as cattle, timber and palm oil. The majority of CPTPP members are not considered to be at risk of deforestation, except Malaysia which has experienced a 29% reduction in tree cover over the last 20 years. This has been driven by agricultural commodities which accounted for 93% of Malaysia’s tree cover loss since 2001, implying that international trade plays a key role in the country’s deforestation”.
What protections are being put in place to ensure that Malaysia’s deforestation is not exacerbated?
Like many civil society organisations, environmental groups and trade unions, I also have concerns over signing up to the outdated ISDS mechanisms which the Government have thus far wisely avoided in most free trade agreements. We must ensure that the right to regulate in the public interest for the sake of environmental protections, food standards and workers’ rights is protected by excluding ISDS terms through side letters. It is not too late, as the Secretary of State seemed to argue a few months ago, to seek similar agreements with countries such as Canada. British businesses will surely be asking why, if the Government can cut the red tape on imports from Brunei, they cannot cut the red tape that is strangling many SMEs and their exports, or attempted exports, to the European Union.
I turn to workers’ rights and ILO standards. Many unions globally have expressed concerns that the CPTPP has no effective mechanism to enforce fundamental ILO standards. Can the Minister share with your Lordships whether there are mechanisms? If so, what are they, as a number of CPTPP members have widespread labour rights abuses violating ILO conventions on freedom of association and collective bargaining, as we have heard? As the noble Lord, Lord Trees, said, it is not our standards or our protections that are the issue. It is the protections and the standards of other countries and them being used to undermine and undercut businesses within the UK.
What we need is a consistent and thought-through approach to reassure the public and companies, both here and abroad, that we are truly a nation open for business. As my friend the shadow Secretary of State for Business and Trade said last week:
“The next Labour government will finally publish the Trade White Paper this Government have failed to do, one that businesses will have shaped so they can have confidence when exploring new markets, and crucially that strategy will be connected to our industrial and foreign objectives”.
What we need is a Government with an industrial strategy that not only lowers the barriers to trade worldwide but supports and facilitates British companies in their desire to export abroad. I disagree with many of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Livingston of Parkhead, but a number of his points hit the nail on the head. We need to support more trade shows; through the Department for Business and Trade, the Government need to support our manufacturing abroad. We need to take advantage of these trade deals and accessions but, as he rightly said, that needs to come through support from the department.
While we are discussing trade, I would like to put another myth to bed. The Government have argued that the non-binding memorandums of understanding signed with individual American states are some kind of Brexit benefit. This is patently not true—they could have been signed anyway—but, as the FT senior trade writer Alan Beattie wrote last week:
“Mind you, when it comes to signing pointless pieces of paper there are few countries to touch the UK. Conservative ministers love agreeing non-binding memoranda of understanding (MoUs) with individual US states and pretending that they’re Brexit dividends (they aren’t)”.
With that, I welcome the new noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, and look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for the segue into my closing address. It is an enormous pleasure to conclude this debate. Before I do so, I draw Members’ attention to my entries in the register of interests. I have investments in companies that operate in CPTPP member countries but, as often in these debates, I do not believe they represent a conflict given the nature of this Bill.
I would like to join the very long line of Peers who complimented the opening and maiden speech made by my noble friend the Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton. At one point I thought it was the popularity of my enthusiasm for free trade that encouraged so many people to sign up to speak in this debate. Only later did I realise that I had delegated the opening—as was heard earlier—to the newest Member of the House, of which I am extremely proud.
I reinforce my own message that to have my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton on these Benches, and in this House, is an enormous testament to the importance of this Chamber. I think we all believe strongly that, as an individual, he is absolutely the right person to take forward our foreign policy agenda at such a perilous time in the state of the world, and such an important time for the United Kingdom. I am very proud to have sat next to him during this debate. I hope noble Lords realise that he took the debate extremely seriously, given the other pressures on him relating to the state visit from the President of Korea, dedicating himself to almost the entirety of the debate. I know he would want me to ensure that there was some element of recognition for the seriousness with which we take the important issue of the CPTPP.
I want to praise and pass thanks on to the IAC, which I believe to be one of the most important entities in this House, in ensuring that we reach strong conclusions as we prosecute our post-Brexit vision of Britain through our free trade agreements. The interlocution with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, has been particularly valuable for me over the past few weeks; I welcome him back to his usual place as chairman of the committee. It would be remiss of me not to pay homage to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, who has been a powerful representative of independent-minded Peers in ensuring that the Government are held to strong account when it comes to talking about our trade ambitions. I am extremely grateful to her that she remains highly active in this area.
We have heard a number of extremely insightful points raised by many Peers. Listening to this debate, I am heartened by the seriousness with which we take this important subject and the key points that people wish to raise. I will try to respond to as many as possible. It is a very long list. It would have taken me the time that it has taken to discuss the Second Reading in this debate to fly to most of the countries in the CPTPP. But I believe that free trade genuinely gives us longer, happier and wealthier lives so, just through this debate on such an important subject, our lives have been extended and we have become personally richer.
I hope your Lordships know that I will inspect the Hansard account of the debate afterwards and, if I have not covered everyone’s comments, ensure that Members of House are written to specifically. As a number of Members have mentioned, there is a sensible and lengthy journey around this process, which, as I will come on to, will include proper scrutiny of the CPTPP treaty itself.
I will start by talking briefly about some of the benefits of the treaty, which can get lost in the details. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Vaizey of Didcot, whom many Members will know as a celebrity on the radio but whom I know as an important advocate of free trade. Some of the points that he raised on the specifics—which, as I said, often get lost in the detail—are extremely valuable: business mobility, the ability to trade, the ability to increase our exports and our imports, and, of particular interest to me as Investment Minister, the essential nature of bringing in more investment to the United Kingdom.
This country is not a member of CPTPP but, today alone, we announced in conjunction with the President of South Korea’s visit to this great nation over £20 billion of investment into the UK. This is the value of trade writ large in pounds sterling. Imagine what we can do with countries with which we have an even closer relationship, through a treaty such as this.
One point raised by a number of noble Lords—my noble friends Lord Lansley, Lord Howell and Lord Udny- Lister, and my noble friend Lord Lamont in particular—was the strategic importance of our membership of the CPTPP, which gives us this crucial presence in the Indo-Pacific region strategically, economically, philosophically, culturally and for reasons of alignment through defence. It is not simply a pounds, shillings and pence trade agreement but an essential component of how we as a nation wish to define ourselves when it comes to ensuring our security and wealth creation into the future. I was very glad that so many Members, even Members who rightly had issues to raise on the specificity of the CPTPP, were fundamentally behind the crucial mission of this trading nation that is the United Kingdom. Fundamentally, the positive comments from noble Lords across the House I find extremely heartening.
I want to bring to bear some of the comments that we have had from businesses and representative groups across the country. I will go on to touch on some of the consultations that we engaged in. I am very aware of the comments made by Members across this House on the importance of both promoting consultation as we go into the trade deal and promoting its benefits as we come out. We have consulted wide and extensively and the feedback that we have had has been overwhelmingly positive. Minette Batters said that
“the government continues to maintain its commitment to our food safety standards”—
something that I ask noble Lords to bear in mind as I touch on that subject later on. She added that the UK achieved a
“balanced outcome, particularly with respect to managing market access in our most vulnerable sectors”.
This is very important. I hope that all Members of the House will hear those points from the celebrated president of the NFU.
William Bain, a former Member of the other place and now at the British Chambers of Commerce, said that the agreement was
“good news for UK business”
and offered
“new prospects in a fast-growing region”.
The Federation of Small Businesses—which the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, was right to point out is an essential component of all our trade deals—has said that it was
“very pleased to see the UK officially join the CPTPP trade agreement”.
I turn now to some of the specific points raised. I will go through these relatively quickly, but I invite your Lordships to intervene if I miss a point; I am sure they will. As I said, there will be some instances where I will be obliged to write with further information.
On issues of technical barriers to trade, a number of noble Lords raised questions as well as support. I was particularly grateful to my noble friends Lord Udny-Lister, Lord Frost and Lady Lawlor. This is important as it will enable us to certify conformity assessment bodies in CPTPP countries so that they can perform the relevant checks, which will enable trade to flow more efficiently. I have looked into this personally in some depth and I do not see there being an issue. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, raised a point on this. These arrangements are reciprocal, which enables us to have our conformity assessment bodies assessed by CPTPP members. It is common practice.
I would like to stress that CABs established in CPTPP parties do not receive automatic approval in the UK; they have to be assessed. All this really does is to enable us to rightly ensure that CABs can be properly accredited by CABs in the UK. I really do not personally see any issue, other than something that is positive, around that.
We touched on government procurement and I am very comfortable discussing further any specifics. My noble friend Lord Lansley has raised some particularly pertinent points. I hope that I answered those in my letter to him, which I am sure has been lodged in the Library for everyone to read. If not, I would be delighted to circulate it to interested Peers. Ultimately, I agree that bringing in some of the procurement changes when we will introduce them under the Procurement Act, which comes into force next October, so that we can comply with our 17 July obligations under CPTPP, seems a bit unnecessary. It is not unnecessary but extremely necessary for us to comply; clearly, it is not a specific or seismic issue. As I said, unfortunately we are obliged to fulfil those requirements of our obligations.
On intellectual property, it is important that the CPTPP provisions commit parties to a minimum level of IP standards. This is not uncommon in plurilateral trade agreements, which often seek to set a baseline on which parties can build, and the UK’s accession to CPTPP will not limit our ability to seek more ambitious trade agreements with others, including those that are CPTPP members. We intend to be a constructive member and to champion our values and priorities, particularly through the committees and councils set up by the agreement.
A question was raised on generic medicines to the UK market. Just to reassure noble Lords across the House, there will be no delays in the entry of generic medicines to the UK market as a result of the UK joining CPTPP and no increase in the cost that the NHS pays for medicines. We have made no domestic changes to our rules regarding the marketing of generic medicines and are committed to ensuring patient access to medicines and affordable medicine prices for the NHS, while also supporting the UK’s world-class life sciences sector. Our future trade agreements will not change this.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Foster, asked a question around grace periods. The UK has signed up to the IP provisions in CPTPP, which is required of all members. We have agreed with the CPTPP parties that the UK will comply with Article 18.38 on grace periods only once the necessary amendments to the European Patent Convention and Strasbourg Patent Convention have been made, in line with Article 18.38 of the CPTPP, and not before. There is a process that we are going through on this point to ensure that all the necessary grace periods relating to IP provisions are aligned.
The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, raised some justifiable points around the principles of copyright, as did the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, who asked whether there are reciprocal rights for our artists in CPTPP countries. There absolutely are; I reassure him that this is the whole point of signing up to this trade agreement. It is a free trade area rather than a country-specific free trade zone, so the reciprocity of the membership is entitled fundamentally to all the members. I am extremely keen to promote that. However, there will be a change in the artists’ rights paid for performances broadcast over media in the UK—not over the internet—and we are applying this to all countries which sign up to these measures in the World Trade Organization. As the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, rightly raised, we are embarking on a consultation which will enable us to ensure that we set the right level of protection for our music industry and for our artists. But fundamentally, the idea of giving our artists half their royalties, as we do here for UK artists and broadcast artists of many other countries, strikes me as a very fair and equitable thing to do and very much part of the spirit of the agreement. However, the consultation will inform us appropriately whether we have that right and I look forward to it being reviewed.
I turn briefly to geographical indicators. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, raised this, as did a number of noble Lords. These provisions would allow the Secretary of State to cancel future geographical indicators, not current existing ones, if it is felt that they are confusing or not appropriate. It is important to note that as part of our withdrawal agreement with the EU, we cannot cancel geographical indicators so any relationship between those indicators and other CPTPP members will be direct, rather than through us. I hope the House will be reassured by that.
I turn to the important point of parliamentary scrutiny in the two minutes or so that I have left. I totally agree with the views of noble Lords: we must have a good debate on both the Bill, which contains relatively specific technical provisions, and the essence of the CPTPP, which is such a wonderful thing. I look forward to having these debates with noble Lords and it is not unusual for the CRaG process to run in parallel to the Bill since, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, will be aware, they are two completely different things in the essence of parliamentary activity.
I have made very clear to the noble Lords, Lord Kerr, Lord Trees, Lord Foster and Lord Grantchester, and to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, the importance of a strong, open and wide-ranging general debate on an FTA. That is right and I abide by the Grimstone principle—my formidable predecessor, whose immortality is secured by having a principle named after him; it is my own ambition to also work one into our future trade debates—to ensure that there is, as I say, a general debate. I think we have to go through a process when that is requested and I would be delighted to respond positively to that. I am also extremely available to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and his committees, and to any noble Lord who wishes to spend time with me or the officials in my department to go through the intricacies of the Bill. We are waiting for the report from the Trade and Agriculture Commission, which I am told will come soon—certainly before the next part of this piece.
I will just cover a few brief final points because, quite rightly, the screen is flashing at me. The noble Lord, Lord McNicol, touched on devolution, the one area that had not been covered. I am pleased to say that we are not trying to run concurrent powers through the Bill but looking for legislative consent Motions. I have written to the Trade Ministers of Wales and Scotland and look forward to having strong interlocution with them, but the feedback that I have had from my officials so far has been extremely positive. I welcome that; there is no doubt that the benefits to Wales and Scotland from this deal are enormous. Scottish whisky alone is worth over £1 billion and the Malaysian opportunities, since we will see import tariffs cut from 80% down to zero, will be significant. That is just one commodity item.
If I may briefly touch on the agricultural side before I come to a conclusion, this is very important and clearly will be the subject of a great deal of the debate in the coming sections of this discussion. It is essential to understand one key point: that there is no derogation of our standards on account of signing up to the CPTPP. We have also introduced a number of clear tariff-rate quota mechanisms to ensure that we are protecting our industries from excessive levels of import. I reassure noble Lords in this instance that actual imports of beef, poultry, eggs and sheep meat from the non-Australia/New Zealand CPTPP countries are extremely low in terms of the pressures on our own agricultural sector. In fact, we have not imported an egg from Mexico, for example, since 2015. It is important to stress that sensational statistic, which I picked up this morning. I was very keen to get my knowledge of it into the debate. I should rephrase that: we have not imported a hard-shell egg in its entirety—we do import egg powder from Mexico, as noble Lords will know.
I turn to my final point before I come to a conclusion. In fact, there are two final points that I would like to cover briefly on China. It is very important in relation to China that we are clear, as are all CPTPP members, that decisions are taken by consensus. Applicant economies must be willing and able to meet the high standards of the agreement, demonstrate a pattern of complying with their existing trade commitments and be able to command consensus. Further to this, and importantly, we will join CPTPP first, so we will be on the inside, judging other applications, not vice versa. An entry into force of the accession protocol will permit us to be a party to the CPTPP, which is why it is so crucial that we ratify this agreement and become a party.
I have one last piece for noble Lords, if I may be indulged by the House, on investor-state dispute settlements. I was extremely grateful to my noble friends Lord Livingston and Lord Lansley for the vocal support for these principles. From my historic experience, running investments in many of these countries, the investor-state dispute mechanisms are very important for allowing British businesses to invest safely and build in these economies. We feel, from the UK side, very protected by the fact that we run and operate a strong degree of rule of law and, as a result of which, we are protected by our own systems. I would not be keen to see us derogate our responsibilities and links to investor-state dispute settlements, because they are important—and, in this instance, they will represent strong protections for our companies operating in CPTPP, resulting in more investment both ways.
To conclude, this Bill represents the continuation of our policy of expanding our horizons to the four corners of the world, being party to the crucial liberalisation of trade which has played such an important part in the economic well-being of our citizens and is an essential component of our strategy to truly immerse ourselves among the faster growing economies of the Asia-Pacific regions. As William Seward said in 1852—and this is my favourite quote—
“the Pacific Ocean, its shores, its islands and the vast regions beyond will become the chief theatre of events in the world’s great hereafter”.
He was correct, and I celebrate this new opportunity afforded us by our fellow nations in the CPTPP to join them in this new stage of development. We should be grateful to them, particularly to countries such as Japan, which led such an important campaign to encourage us to accede—but all the countries of the CPTPP. The Secretary of State for Business and Trade has stated:
“As CPTPP’s first ever new member, and the only European member, we are linking the UK to some of the world’s most dynamic economies, giving British businesses first-mover advantage in some of the fastest-growing markets in the world, and supporting jobs and economic growth right across the country”.
I would also like to thank the former Secretary of State, Dr Liam Fox, who started these negotiations, Elizabeth Truss, the previous Secretary of State, Anne-Marie Trevelyan, Kemi Badenoch, the current Secretary of State, and all the civil servants and officials who have been so hard working in this process. This is an issue that transcends party politics: it is intrinsic to our way of life and our prosperity, not just here in the UK, but across the world. I commend the Bill to the House.
Lord Johnson of Lainston
That the Bill be committed to a Grand Committee, and that it be an instruction to the Grand Committee that they consider the bill in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 3, The Schedule, Clauses 4 to 8, Title.